JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  May 2011

PHD-DESIGN May 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: IDEO design thinking

From:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 15 May 2011 23:19:52 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (226 lines)

Dear Lataifeh,

Thank you for your message. 
You seem to be misunderstanding what I wrote and then using a straw man
fallacy to argue against part of it as if it were the whole. The argument
that modelling is not useful because it is not perfect in the limit is
limited. It is about as spurious as suggesting that Graphic Design should
not ever be used because graphics are not a perfect communication. I did not
say that it is necessary to 'perfectly predict' the behaviours of outcomes
resulting from designs. In most cases, being able to predict the general
direction of dynamic behaviours over time of  outcomes resulting from the
implementations of complex designs is more than is typically attempted by
designers except in technical design domains.

In essence, in the earlier posts, I  suggested three things:

1. Predicting the dynamic behaviours of outcomes (i.e. over time)  that
result  from the introduction of a new design is an important aspect of
design activity if designers are to be professional.

2. It is helpful for designers to distinguish between 'simple' design
situations and 'complex' design situations. The methods taught in design
schools don't enable designers to predict the behaviours of  outcomes
resulting from designs in complex design situations. This is a problem if
the Art and Design fields claim that the design  methods for 'simple'
designs  apply directly to complex situations. I defined 'complex' design
situations as those having outcomes that are shaped by multiple feedback
loops.

3.  That designers take responsibility. This includes being exposed to legal
and financial plaints for compensation. This could occur for instance if
(say) a graphic doesn't produce the asked for effects, results in
problematic adverse outcomes, or uses inappropriate rhetorical manipulation.
At present, education on these issues is not a significant aspect of the
design education relating to creating design solutions, yet is potentially
central to any conception of 'design ethics' in Art and Design design
fields.

I'm unclear from your post whether the above view of responsibility is the
same or different from what you suggest. As I see it, responsibility focuses
on seeing  the design brief and design as legal documents. For example, a
design brief might specify 'produce 5 graphics (for a book) to explain
specified  ideas to individuals with 10-12 years of education and must be
understood by 80% of them'. In this case, the brief and design for the
graphics would be part of the contract. The financial and legal
responsibility for fulfilling the brief is located with the designer after
implementation of the design. That is, the designer would be exposed to a
financial claim  if 80% of readers of the book with 10-12 years education
did not understand the concepts using those 5 graphics.  Is this the same as
where you are coming from?

Your comment on  Ackoff's Idealised Design approach points to a slightly
different target than what I had written about. Ackoff's focus of idealised
design was the design of an organisation. Design activity, education and
practices are not an organisation. Nor is it clear that a  design field is
an organisation in the sense that Ackoff assumed.  Further, Ackoff addressed
the problem of complexity relatively simply  by focusing on the problems and
contexts as messes. This leaves hidden the underlying causality in  problems
in understanding those messes, which leaves much of the intrinsic design
problems unsolved. In contrast, the 'Two Feedback Loop' hypothesis about
simple vs. complex design  makes explicit that causality in ways likely to
change Ackoff's analyses.

Best wishes,
Terry


-----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 Moh.
Lataifeh
Sent: Sunday, 15 May 2011 3:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: IDEO design thinking

Dear Terrance, Francoise and all

I am not in a position to comment on IDEO process, so my comments are
limited to one aspect of this great discussion, which is modeling and
prediction of design outcomes.

Even though it is important to predict the behaviour of design outcomes,  I
would argue that it is very much difficult -cant say impossible - to
perfectly do that because it depends on different interdependent,
interacting factors  with constant changing dynamics  >> take the exact same
example of a heater in a room>> it is very simple in Terrance presentation,
but thinking of the connections that designers need to consider when dealing
with this (as mentioned by Francoise) the complexity that lies beneath this
deceiving simplicity is unveiled.

Modeling as a salvation for perfect prediction has also been proved to be a
risky solution; every Model -according to Weinberg - is "ultimately the
expression of one thing we think we hope to understand in terms of another
that we think we do understand" so a models though very useful- a
teleological value- are only abstractions of reality and maybe-from one
perspective -fundamentally wrong because they are not real as argued by
Boardman and Sauser.



The pathways out of this as Terrance mentioned are:

*First... the development of real professionalization of design activity
that includes designers taking full responsibility for predicting  design
outcomes accurately and taking financial responsibility for
problematic design outcomes.

The second, is radically improved design education that includes the
necessary reasoning and research skills to enable designers to be able to
predict the behaviours over time of outcomes
resulting from their designs.*

I think they are simply one, we educate to produce professional. If
education includes the necessary reasoning and research skills etc, then we
shall get the kind of professional designers with specialized knowledge
(attitude and aptitude) to take full responsibility for their design
outcomes.

But again, I can't help but to think that this  -creating a pure science of
design- is not enough, because even in a domain of pure scientific methods,
Operation Research as an example, Ackoff detailed that mathematical modeling
that once fuelled the existence of OR became short of achieving its main two
objectives: predicting and preparedness. The warning was of the gap to
prepare perfectly for an imperfect prediction; especially when other factors
were added to the mix and views of a whole system emerged; design I think is
never seul and solo.


My point here builds on the last few words of Francois; it should not only
be a science but rather TRANSDISCIPLINARY perspective to design challenges
that can help understand and build upon our best imagined- yet achievable
situation possible today and work our way backwards to current situation (as
argued in Idealized Design for Ackoff).




Regards,


Mohammad Lataifeh



IOCT
De Montfort University
Leicester, UK.







On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Francois Nsenga <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Yes, dear Terry!
>
> In addition to profesionalization, acountability, and training, there also
> is (I would say even more importantly) the image we ourselves portray in
> public that, in my view, is too reductive and not at all to our advantage.
> Especially, while negotiating with our direct and indirect commissioners
to
> give shape to the artifactual environment. As long as we, designers, (in
> general, with a few exceptions) keep confining ourselves within the group
> of
> "creative" members of society (artists and crafts/studio people), we
simply
> are no longer entitled to dealing with that thick complexity that surround
> us all. We can no longer pretend to generate 'boundedly rational choices'
> leading to 's*atisficing* decisions' (dixit Simon) or solutions.
>
> Even in your example of heating a room, the situation is not that simple.
> Indeed, beyond mere mechanical or electronical manipulation of the
> appliance
> - outcome of providing heat in a 'simple feedback loop' - and prior to
> invoke ( in my judicial metaphor, I prefer 'summon to appear' ) the entire
> world to heating a room, the situation you evoke is so complex when all
> (human and non human), directly and indirectly concerned are considered in
> their potential, various and multiple feedback loops. And what about the
> outcomes of heating on animals that may be in the room, how are they
> affected by low, medium, or high heat? On young children and elderly
> people?
> On plants? On a trendy wall paper? On a highly sensitive computer? On the
> varnish on the floor and on furniture or the paint on walls? On the bill
to
> be paid? Heat in which room? When? In a hospital? Or in a restaurant? And
I
> don't leave aside the outcomes resulting from heating the room, on the
long
> run, on copper wire, on walling material, isolation, thermostat sensors
> knobs, heat diffusers, etc., etc.
>
> All this hints to another 'obvious - but 'complicated', and hence rarely
> tackled - solution pathway' through complexity: to learn how to set - and
> deal with - boundaries among all those concerned with any given situation.
> Among the few - the list can be extended to most pertinent limits -
> examples
> given above, at which range of priority each will be 'rationally' set on
> the
> scale of providing heat to a particular place?
>
> We are here very far from mere 'creativity', caftsmanship, and
> droughtsmanship.  By the way, please don't get me wrong, these aptitudes
> and
> skills are very important and absolutely necessary. But each for a
> corresponding purpose, and at respective specific stages in the disigning
> process. Complexity often breeds confusion. And confusion, in my view, is
> the plague that our profession suffers most.
>
> Thus, very far from simplistic or simplified (narrowly modeled) design
> situations, or far from those situations perceived as complicated or those
> labeled 'chaotic' and 'unknown', I believe there is a need for a 'science'
> rather. I would even make it more precise: a need for a transdisciplinary
> science of the artifactual world!
>
>
> Francois
> Montreal
>



-- 
Moh. Lataifeh

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager