Dear All,
As a long time lurker, I offer the following:
"Design is a process of structuring relationships".
Unfortunately I can't claim authorship, the original source is Ezio Manzini.
The challenge is to explain the key terms "process", "structuring"
(as a conscious task) and "relationships"...
Cheers,
Paul Osmond
Environment Unit
University of New South Wales
At 11:47 AM 22/06/2008, you wrote:
>There are 3 messages totalling 235 lines in this issue.
>
>Topics of the day:
>
> 1. sa simple definition of design
> 2. A simple definition of 'Design'? (2)
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:31:04 +1000
>From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: sa simple definition of design
>
>On 21/06/2008, at 1:15 AM, Popowsky wrote:
> > The idea that you once tried to find or articulate a
> > definition of design is interesting.
>I find it interesting historically, not least because most of my
>sources were from engineering design, even though I was working in the
>English 'Art & Design' context
> >
> > However- more interesting- it seems to me- is the fact that you
> > relate to your try as 'A pity'.
>My regret was not due to my trying to define designing, rather that it
>was due to the fact that 'Design Methods and Theories' ceased
>publication when it did.
>
>
>David
>--
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 12:59:05 +1000
>From: "Dr. Lauchlan A. K. Mackinnon" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design'?
>
>Hello all,
>
>I don't drop by this group much, but this thread raises a fascinating
>question for me.
>
>To me, my intuitive notion of design is fairly clear: design is the
>deliberate development of some 'solution' that meets specific needs in a
>given context with an end in mind and an approach that is user- or needs-
>focused.
>
>This definition of design can apply whether the design activity is in
>industrial engineering, software development, fashion, or business services.
>The solution need not be unique, there may be multiple valid solutions for
>any design context.
>
>With this definition, design would not have to necessarily be creative or
>innovative. It could be an application of rational engineering know-how to
>produce a solution that meets a perceived or actual need, or be a highly
>creative and innovative effort that produces something new or reframes or
>combines elements in a new and unexpected way. But if it is not focused on
>some sort of need and design context it is not design.
>
>But of course I can only have such a simple definition of design because I
>do not have my main professional focus in design ;) And I do bear in mind
>that I define it as much for my own convenience as anything - obviously it
>is a broad word with a lot of different usages by different groups in
>different contexts.
>
>I also quite like this more general definition:
>http://www.odannyboy.com/blog/cmu/archives/000766.html "Design is the human
>power to conceive, plan, and realize products that serve human beings in the
>accomplishment of any individual or collective purpose." But perhaps it's
>too general to be a definition, and ends up being more like a mission
>statement.
>
>I am interestedin Filippo's definition:
>
><<
> > Designing is a process of developing implementable proposals to change a
> > current situation that is perceived to be unbalanced to a preferred
>situation
> > that is perceived to be more balanced.
> >>
>
>To me this is so analogous to Wertheimer's 'gestalt' processes of Productive
>Thinking where an initial problem situation gives rise to 'vectors' of work
>on a problem situation that ultimately may rework both the problem situation
>and the 'gestalt' frame in which the problem is viewed.
>
>Incidentally in passing for those who are interested and have not seen it,
>the June issue of Harvard Business Review has an article by Tim Brown, CEO
>of IDEO, writing on "design thinking." For Brown, "design thinking" in the
>business context is "a discipline that uses the designer's sensibility and
>methods to match people's needs with what is technologically feasible and
>what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market
>opportunity." I think that that's consistent with my definition of design!
>:)
>
>Interested in your thoughts.
>
>Cheers
>
>Lauchlan Mackinnon
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Daniel Chambers" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:36 PM
>Subject: A simple definition of 'Design'?
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>I'm sure we have all wrestled with definitions at some point or another. I
>have been pondering if there is a simple, all-encompassing definition of
>'Design' that works in all contexts. I would like to offer the following
>for your critical analysis, discussion and thoughts:
>
>'Seeking differentiation through insight'
>
>Regards,
>
>Daniel
>
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 13:17:37 +0530
>From: Jyoti Kumar <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: A simple definition of 'Design'?
>
>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
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 20 Jun 2008 to 21 Jun 2008 (#2008-147)
>*****************************************************************
|