Print

Print


Fil,

We're on the same page. At the UN they subsume all four steps into "planning", which is perfectly reasonable. My effort is to get them to realize that, in planning processes, we reach "design junctures" (your transition from #1 to #2 more or less) where we have two options. A) align known solutions to the problem (or need) which are culled from standard operating procedures, lessons learned, best practices, etc. or B) embrace the state of not knowing the solution, create design space (and we mean this as strictly your #2 here) and allocate resources to crafting new and justifiable solutions.

We have a two-pager on design junctures which can be found here and was prepared for Case Western a year ago or so.

http://thepolicylab.academia.edu/DerekBMiller/Papers/833861/Working_with_Design_Junctures_at_the_Knowledge-to-Action_Nexus

The way we explaining designing is almost always relational to the processes we need to speak to. But in essence they need to involve your steps. 

What I want to do, later (busy now) is start a discussion here about the relationship between design and strategy. Because that seems like a rich point for discussion.

cheers.

d.
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director

The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America

Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org 

This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.

On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Filippo A. Salustri wrote:

> Derek,
> I agree with you; there are different perspectives on the Rubik's cube of
> design - and they're all valid within one or more contexts.  Language,
> representing those perspectives, will change as a result.
> But it's still a Rubik's cube. :)
> 
> I also am perfectly happy to accept as equally valid (at least for now) that
> some of the items I noted might be thought of as non-design-y.
> 
> In my mind, this bears partly on the difference between how professional
> designers and design researchers view design, as opposed to how
> the-rest-of-the-world sees it.  I know many very knowledgeable non-designers
> who think design does right down to my step 4.  This doesn't mean they're
> right, but their perspective must be part of the conversation, I think.
> 
> As an example of just how gray this thing may really be, consider that while
> Derek identified step 4 as possibly synonymous with 'planning,' I might
> argue that planning occurs throughout the process, in that even the first
> step lays out an understanding that must both be planned and is an essential
> component of planning step 2.
> 
> I once wrote a paper that tried to define design by identifying what it's
> *not.* (The premise being that everything that is not-design must be
> design.)  I still think it's a good idea.  For those who are interested, you
> can read it here:
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/I/Papers/NleFasDpp07Preprint.pdf
> 
> Cheers.
> Fil
> 
> On 21 September 2011 05:11, Derek B. Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Fil.
>> 
>> Your four points are spot on. I would say that  for some uses  there is
>> other vocabulary that describes them, but doesn't challenge them.
>> 
>> Some might argue that designing is only #1 and #2, whereas #3 is decision
>> making, and #4 is planning.
>> 
>> Another way to slice it is to conceptualize it as strategy  goal,
>> resources, methods, with a theory on the employment of resources through
>> methods to reach the goal. Hence "ends, ways and means".
>> 
>> What is clear to us too is that you need to start with a mystery to solve
>> or a solution to design. Then, we start to seek information, turn that into
>> evidence for making claims, build theory for situated action, craft possible
>> solutions that are reposed on that theory, and then select one of those
>> solutions for actual employment.
>> 
>> All starts, though, with what you want to get done.
>> 
>> d.
>> 
>> _________________
>> Dr. Derek B. Miller
>> Director
>> 
>> The Policy Lab
>> 321 Columbus Ave.
>> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
>> Boston, MA 02116
>> United States of America
>> 
>> Phone
>> +1 617 440 4409
>> Twitter
>> @Policylabtweets
>> Web
>> www.thepolicylab.org
>> 
>> This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to
>> The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> 
> -- 
> \V/_
> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University
> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
> M5B 2K3, Canada
> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
> Fax: 416/979-5265
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/