Hi all,
This definition seems to be very promising and I wonder, what would be
the place of 'design methodology' in such a definition.

Doesn't 'the wicked problem' approach to design definition in other words
mean, that in cases where the problem spaces do not show any obvious
patterns 'mapable' to the solution spaces then 'design' thinking is a must.
Once a mapping has been 'seen' which develops into a 'methodology' and
then into 'methods' and 'processes' and it becomes a 'not so wicked'
problem. But I wonder in such a vision, do we have a place for a 'design
methodology' and then, well, a 'design methodology' exists at all ? and if
it does not, then why do need the definition of the design in the first
place as it itself can pose like the 'wicked problem' for every mind that
slowly recognises the boundaries through acts of thought and evaluation in
the process of designing.. ...

 just a thought!
jyoti
2008/6/20 Filippo A. Salustri <[log in to unmask]>:

> Hi all,
>
> Gunnar asked about "design that is NOT design." I've thought of this too,
> and my answer (to myself at least) is boundaries. That is, it's not so much
> about whether something is or is not design, but where things change between
> being and not being design.
>
> I take a "boundary" to be where/when a quality or quantity changes between
> two relatively constant values.
>
> Boundaries are not crisp, except for the totally artificial/abstract ones.
> We might readily accept that there's a boundary where our bodies end and
> the atmosphere starts. But if you look down at the sub-microscopic scale,
> you see all kinds of molecules, gases, and even living things passing
> through that boundary.
>
> So boundaries are really 'regions' where a change happens. My
> understanding of how the brain works is that boundaries (points of change)
> are recognized first, then the regions bounded are recognized. Eventually
> we 'see' the scene consciously. The boundary recognition is done
> sub-consciously, so we don't know we're doing it.
>
> Now look at something commonly used to describe designing. EG: "designing
> is a kind of problem solving." There are some problems (e.g. find the roots
> of a quadratic equation) that are solved, but the solution is not designed.
> Unless we admit some other paradigm besides 'problem-solving', I'd have to
> say that designing is a kind of problem-solving. I've yet to come up with a
> designing task/method/process that isn't solving a problem, but there are
> plenty of problems that can be solved without design.
>
> Let's just say for now that this is acceptable. I would say that this
> means there's a boundary, on one side of which is designing, and on the
> other side of which is problem-solving-without-designing.
>
> My best guess of the 'location' of that boundary so far has to do with the
> notion of 'wicked problems.' One might argue that the solutions of wicked
> problems *must* be designed, but if a problem isn't wicked, then there is at
> least the possibility of a designed solution. Note that in the latter case,
> designing might be needed to come up with that initial solution methodology,
> but that's at a meta-level from the problem itself.
>
> ...does any of this make sense to anyone else but me?
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
>
> Swanson, Gunnar wrote:
>
>> I find it particularly troublesome when any group tries to define its
>> field as an honorific. Is design always innovative? If we [design] something
>> that is not innovative, have we done something that is not design? How about
>> thoughtful, constructive, strategic. . .
>>
>> It would be interesting to try it from the other side: What is it that
>> people think of as design that is NOT design?
>>
>> Gunnar
>> ----------
>> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
>> 1901 East 6th Street
>> Greenville, North Carolina 27858
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> +1 252 258 7006
>>
>> at East Carolina University:
>> +1 252 328 2839 [log in to unmask]
>>
>
> --
> Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
> 350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
> Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
> M5B 2K3 Canada http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>



--
Jyoti Kumar
Reaearch Scholar,
Department of Design,
Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati