thanks,
tracee,
for your well observed account of design practice. it shows that designers can reflect, perhaps better than those interested in defining design from its outside, how design is a relational practice, not only a mental process.
you say that the design process is becoming ever more fragmented and shared amongst different people - i call the latter stakeholders and argue, much as you do, that design cannot succeed without the support of a network of stakeholders.
you say that designers operate off 'conceptual knowledge'. i agree with the addition that concepts are significantly influenced by how designers talk about them. in my experiences, good concepts are often formed when explaining things to team members. i suggest we know of each other's concepts only by talking with, drawing, and showing what we mean to others.
you plead for preserving professional design judgment. i agree, except that such judgment must be appreciated and accepted by other stakeholders. one could say it must be socially validated for it to be sound.
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 Tracee Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
Hi all,
I agree that designing has gotten more complicated and complex. I have
been reflecting on the changes in design for the past eight years in
attempt to make sure that my own design profession is secure, responsive,
relevant. Many of the changes I have been witnessing are baffling and seem
counter to the design education/training I've received in undergrad and
grad school. My training is along the lines of what Erik has been
describing... a process that is creative, not scientific, and uses the
messiness and tension of the situation as an active part of the process
(as opposed to reductively managing it). In my experience, this kind of
design process and training is not transferring well into the working
world and I think I'm beginning to understand why -- or at least part of
the reason why. Its not that design process itself is getting more complex
or complicated ... or the factors feeding into it are necessarily more
than the creative design process can handle. It's that the design process
is becoming ever more fragmented and shared amongst different people.
I believe that designers operate off of 'conceptual knowledge' and that we
can't keep treating the only necessary knowledge designers require to do
their job as solely 'procedural knowledge' or 'experiential knowledge'.
Dr. Hilary Austen ("Achieving Personal Artistry", Rotman; The Magazine of
the Rotman School of Management, Spring/Summer 2006, pages 60-62) explains
these different kinds of knowledge systems that factor into a rich design
process in a way that makes it clear to me how some of these changes have
evolved (but perhaps not succeeded) in the past 8 years.
I have seen a design process that has traditionally been an individual
process become increasingly externalized by necessity of interdisciplinary
teams, geographically dispersed teams, many more stakeholders, and design
as a middleware process that isn't always directly dealing with the
customer/client. Its also been necessitated by a growing design practice
in the IT industry which has a strong engineering/scientific bent where
the expectation is that design decisions be scientifically proven or
rationalized.
In my first hand experience, the challenge we have before us is how do we
keep that creative curiosity and muse alive as a train of thought and line
of design inquiry *between* people in a way that is not reductivist? If we
can't support conceptual knowledge within individuals any longer (i.e. the
visual designer is separate from the product designer is separate from the
user research, etc), which is where the momentum seems to be going, then
we need to find a way to support conceptual knowledge (as opposed to just
supporting procedural knowledge) across these people. And I do believe
there is a strong need to keep this conceptual knowledge practice alive in
order for rich design practice to survive.
I've seen a trend toward achieving this externalization by basically
taking the design process and becoming facilitators to it... instead of
using the process themselves, the designer facilitates this line of
questioning with the stakeholders. Its an interesting and effective way to
get design practice recognized and maintain richness of thought, however
I'm not entirely convinced we should or could have all designers become
process facilitators (???).
Some of this may be about how tools can support this conceptual practice
... but in my experience, before we even get to that (which would be a
successful milestone), the more significant need we have is to recognize
and foster a non-reductive design process. We have come to a point where
many organizations no longer recognize this and have come to expect that
methodologies will do it all. The designer is unsupported in their efforts
to pursue design hypotheses and conduct design explorations ... basically
to follow the dialog that pulls them through options and inspired
reasoning. And if they are able to do this, they are asked what user
research backs up the rationale (this is a legitimate question but we know
not everything can be tested). There seems to be a divestment of value
placed on professional design judgement (i.e. the kind that uses
conceptual knowledge to fashion options and rationale).
Thank you for the opportunity to articulate my latest thoughts... looking
forward to any impressions that this esteemed forum may have.
thanks!
Tracee Vetting Wolf
Erik Stolterman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent by: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
09/20/2009 03:21 AM
Please respond to
Erik Stolterman <[log in to unmask]>
To
[log in to unmask]
cc
Subject
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
Hi Terry
Thanks again for your interesting reply. I will just restate what I wrote
earlier, I have no problem with the kind of complexity you are discussing
and I have no problem with the idea that designers need new tools to be
able
to handle some aspects of a growing complexity. And maybe you don't have a
problem with my version of complexity (or as you write "complicatedness")
which requires designers with a well developed and trained sensibility and
judgment for quality and composition. My point is that, even though the
tools (in terms of methods or knowledge) that you advocate, those tools
have
to be incorporated in a designerly process of design inquiry and action as
I
described in an earlier post. It can not be the other way around, that is,
that the scientific tools and methods become superior to the designerly
process since then the process is by definition not design anymore.
Instead,
it becomes a scientific process (which of course is perfectly fine) but
that
changes what we can expect from the process and more important it changes
the measure of success.
best
Erik
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
>
>
> Complexity = more than 2 interlinked feedback loops affecting the
behaviour
> of the designed outcome in the real world
>
> Complicated = lots of complications but only one or two feedback loops.
>
>
>
> Designs get created regardless of whether designers address complexity.
> Sometimes they win prizes. Sometimes it is others that address the
> complexity – many other fields are skilled at it. My concern is when
> designers claim to be able to address complexity but don’t have the
skills
> and tools or assume that complexity is the same as complication and use
> conventional design tools and assume they are appropriate.
>
>
>
> Designs of pens and desks are usually merely complicated, regardless of
the
> complicatedness of the ethical, aesthetical and rational dimensions of
> reality.
>
>
>
> If a designed object affects its environment, its situation, that is
> simple causality (no feedback loops). If the designed object affects the
> situation and then that change in the situation causes you to need to
> redesign the object because the situation has changed and that in turn
> results in a further change to the situation and a further need to
redesign
> the object ….. then that is a simple single feedback loop design
problem. A
> double feedback loop design problem is one in which the design has two
> feedback loops that differently affect the environment and the design
and in
> different ways.
>
>
>
> A typical multi-feedback loop for designing interventions in a simple
sales
> organization is shown in
> http://www.systemdynamics.org/DL-IntroSysDyn/feed19.gif The feedback
loops
> are ANY combination of lines that form a complete ‘loop’. The designer’s
job
> is to identify which interventions are likely to be successful and how
they
> will change the behaviour of the organisation in the short , medium and
> longer term.
>
>
>
> For designers creating designs for public promotion to reduce the
obesity
> epidemic, it would, in professional terms, seem to be pretty important
to
> understand how social and other factors shape obesity trends in order to
> design appropriately. Here is a diagram of the main feedback loops:
> http://www.shiftn.com/obesity/Full-Map.html This causal loop model is
the
> starting point from which an understanding of behaviour of a designed
> intervention can begin. Obesity is one of the simpler socio-economic
> situations as it is a single factor outcome measurement to be reduced.
>
>
>
> A reasonable question to ask is whether one expects designers to be
capable
> of contributing to designing to reduce obesity (i.e have the skills to
> understand methods such as causal maps, derive system dynamic models and
> work with similar tools) or whether one only expects designers to
prettify
> the casual loop models. I suggest many design courses equip designers to
do
> the latter rather than the former.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> *Erik: *
>
> I suspect we use very different definitions of "complexity". To me the
most
> "simple" design say a pen, a desk, a small software application, etc,
are
> all examples of objects with infinite complexity, since they all
encompass
> all possible and existing ethical, aesthetical, and rational dimensions
of
> reality.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "simple situations" and "complex
> situations", I can't even imagine a "simple situation" in design.
>
>
>
> As an example, I recently listened to a presentation by IDEO where they
had
> been asked to design a airplane cockpit instrumentation and environment,
the
> whole thing. They of course were no expert on airplanes but are experts
on
> the design process. They came up with a cockpit design that has won
prizes
> for being a great airplane design. Of course they approached the
situation
> in a designerly way and with their design process they could reach new
ideas
> and a new design. I don't know if you would consider this as a complex
> situation. For me it is, theoretically not more complex (or wicked) than
a
> design of a pen, but maybe that is what you mean.
>
>
>
>
>
|
