maybe you are interested in a sketch on "design as the practice of
transdisciplinarity". It is a recent paper for EAD09, critically
dealing with the big claims of Design Thinking.
At 11:11 Uhr +0400 15.05.2011, Moh. Lataifeh wrote:
>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
>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).
>De Montfort University
>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
>> "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
>> - 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
>> 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 -
>> given above, at which range of priority each will be 'rationally' set on
>> 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
>> 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!