Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Salu Ylirisku
::
Rate this Message:
Hi all,
I'm a doctoral student at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (focusing on conceptual creation of ideas in social interaction), and I've been following the list with a great interest. And I also did follow this thread until it exploded into a debate between the confines of design vs. engineering. To get back on track, I shall return to the very important question that Alireza outlined: "where are we going in this field?" Essentially the fact seems to be that we simply cannot get a solid picture of the field unless we defined it so abstract as it would completely silence the uneasiness that motivates a closer look on where we are heading. The thread, so far, has contained several important contributions both to EXPAND our picture of the field and to DEFINE the field. Less voiced are the WAYs in which these two things are now achieved, i.e. through a debate in an e-mail list, and, how these ways actually have a great impact on how we come to perceive where we are. Research fields, so far, have been defined and expanded through journals, conferences, other publications, and public debate (you may add here more traditional ways if you wish). As a rather young researcher I have been grown in the era of computers (also graduated from that field), and seen how the developments in the means of exchange has dramatically influenced how we conceive things. Networked computers are now providing us with unforeseen pace at which to explore material, relate things together, and deliver understandable stuff in front of our eyes. I claim that through these means we have now some decent assistance to keep us updated with where we are (on a level that we may feel helpful). The uneasiness about where we are heading will most certainly not be resolved by "networked calculation". My point is to make us increasingly aware that any static definition of our field will eventually fail, or will prove fundamentally uninteresting, and that we are getting new ways of keeping us informed. And, let's keep trying. Kind regards, Salu Ylirisku Doctoral student in design research University of Art and Design Helsinki / School of Design PS: If you are interested in what is going on at the moment, you could for example take a look of the www.siri.com. It underpins the most interesting technological developments currently (if you look deeper into how the system comes to understand what you say - not just the superficial fact that it is actually understanding something with the particular device). |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Klaus Krippendorff
::
Rate this Message:
i agree,
salu, a static definition of design can stifle creativity and in the past has always deterred progress. however, it is important to outline the contours of what needs to be known, taught, inquired into, and practiced as distinct from what others are better at. for any profession, it is important to develop an expertise that no other discipline considers its own, find ways of refining its conceptualization, and become economically, socially, and culturally indispensible. a profession that does not do that eventually dies or surrenders to one that succeeds. klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Salu Ylirisku Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 12:24 AM To: PHD-DESIGN@... Subject: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...) Hi all, I'm a doctoral student at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (focusing on conceptual creation of ideas in social interaction), and I've been following the list with a great interest. And I also did follow this thread until it exploded into a debate between the confines of design vs. engineering. To get back on track, I shall return to the very important question that Alireza outlined: "where are we going in this field?" Essentially the fact seems to be that we simply cannot get a solid picture of the field unless we defined it so abstract as it would completely silence the uneasiness that motivates a closer look on where we are heading. The thread, so far, has contained several important contributions both to EXPAND our picture of the field and to DEFINE the field. Less voiced are the WAYs in which these two things are now achieved, i.e. through a debate in an e-mail list, and, how these ways actually have a great impact on how we come to perceive where we are. Research fields, so far, have been defined and expanded through journals, conferences, other publications, and public debate (you may add here more traditional ways if you wish). As a rather young researcher I have been grown in the era of computers (also graduated from that field), and seen how the developments in the means of exchange has dramatically influenced how we conceive things. Networked computers are now providing us with unforeseen pace at which to explore material, relate things together, and deliver understandable stuff in front of our eyes. I claim that through these means we have now some decent assistance to keep us updated with where we are (on a level that we may feel helpful). The uneasiness about where we are heading will most certainly not be resolved by "networked calculation". My point is to make us increasingly aware that any static definition of our field will eventually fail, or will prove fundamentally uninteresting, and that we are getting new ways of keeping us informed. And, let's keep trying. Kind regards, Salu Ylirisku Doctoral student in design research University of Art and Design Helsinki / School of Design PS: If you are interested in what is going on at the moment, you could for example take a look of the www.siri.com. It underpins the most interesting technological developments currently (if you look deeper into how the system comes to understand what you say - not just the superficial fact that it is actually understanding something with the particular device). |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Dear Alireza,
In looking at the trajectories of development of subfields of design, it is obvious that there are changes afoot that are much bigger than people are recognizing. This is in much the same way that many designers and design researchers haven't realized how completely computer automation has replaced many professional design practices of 20 years ago. Design activities and theories are changing very very fast - many current ideas in design research are already dead - just not yet buried! The following is how I see things. I'm aware others see things differently and some will try to cling to the past. Design research and design activity is changing significantly in several ways. The changes are particularly relevant to the Art and Design traditions of designing. They are especially significant for human-centered or user-centered design practices and research. These changes require a new way of discussing 'design' in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' and a move away from earlier ways of thinking. The central issue is the limitations of human thinking, intuition and emotion for being able to design in complex situations. Designers are unable to understand the behaviour of designs complex situations with feedback loops. If designers cannot understand the behaviours of a designed outcome then they cannot design. This issue CANNOT be resolved by consulting with stakeholders, group design, participatory design, or any consultative tools. All these tools do is convince people that they accept a faulty design. The problem is that many designers in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' are now designing in areas of complexity in which conventional design practices, design theories no longer apply (see http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2009/complex-ad.htm ). Of course, they still use traditional methods. The outcomes are faulty designs which from experience are then blamed on others - or on God (wickedness). This is an increasing trend and an increasing problem that designers are imposing on the world with the moves into Design Strategy and Social Design. In parallel to this complexity problem is the epistemic shift in which classic social and psychological approaches to understanding group and individual sense-making and behaviour are being replaced wholemeal by information coming from new disciplines.. As I see it, the significant five changes that are happening to transform 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' are: 1. Increasing tendency to address complex problems in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' fields. This will make irrelevant all current design methods based on 'feelings', 'intuition', 'design thinking', 'participative design', consultative design' and all classic social 'group-based' design methods from the 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' fields. 2. Replacement by new understandings from cognitive-neuroscience in design theory and research of the current theory foundations of concepts of 'emotion' (as in 'design and emotion'), 'intuition', 'feelings' and 'meaning'. This is already happening in many other fields - design research is lagging. 3. Replacement of sociological, anthropological and ethnographic theories in design theory and research by new understandings from fields associated with ethology and evolutionary biology. 4. Massive increases in the mathematisation and computer-based automation of art, creativity and design of several orders greater than what we have seen in the last two decades. 5. Influence of media resulting in increased levels of directed personal automation of thinking and self-derivation of meaning. This will result in people's attitudes and ways of living increasingly aligned with their use of designed objects/situations, rather than designing outcomes to align with people's wants and understandings. Best regards, Terry |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Erik,
Thank you for your message. The problem I raised is that current design methods don't enable designers to know how the designs they create will behave once in the real world when these designs include two or more feedback loops - unless the designers use special approaches to model the behaviour of what they design. I suggest that if a design team doesn't know how the designs will behave then they at very least open themselves up to legal claims and more they open themselves up to the ridicule of incompetence: that their practices can hardly be regarded as professional behaviour - more like chancing. I'm suggesting that designers need essentially to be able to use methods to explicitly model how their guesses will behave - rather than simply trying to sell guesses and pretences as designs. You say" Design is an approach that can deal with infinite complexity due to its different philosophy, methods and techniques. It can deal with the complexity of people's wants, needs, and desires." Tell me how. How does this 'Design as an approach' enable designers to know that their designs will behave the way they say? Warm regards, Terry From: estolter@... [mailto:estolter@...] On Behalf Of Erik Stolterman Sent: Saturday, 19 September 2009 3:55 PM To: Terence Love Cc: PHD-DESIGN@... Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...) Dear Terence, Thanks for your interesting description of the change of design. Even though the changes you point to are in many cases real and happening, I cannot agree with your conclusions. You are correct in that the complexity in design is increasing, and I also agree that new tools can help designers to address certain aspects of that complexity, but design is still about creating something new, something that will fit an infinite complex reality, and not a problem to which more sophisticated methods and tools can find "solutions". Your five changes at the end of your post rest on a notion of design that is contrary to how I understand design. To me, you are advocating a development where design is moving into a problem solving paradigm, which to me is exactly what design should not do! Your push for a "scientification" (if that is a word) of design is clear. To me, the increased complexity in the world, leads to the opposite conclusion. Design is an approach that can deal with infinite complexity due to its different philosophy, methods and techniques. It can deal with the complexity of people's wants, needs, and desires. These problems do not have given solutions, they constantly change, people change, desires change. Reality change. It is not about finding perfect "solutions" that can be "discovered" with scientific methods, it is about being able to on a detailed level understand human conditions and create inspiring designs that support people in their handling of their lifeworlds. So, it is crucial that design as an approach recognizes its own strength and do not try to copy science or engineering in order to cope with complexity. Design can and should develop its own rationality, logic and rigor for its own purposes without copying less suitable methods from other approaches. And there are good signs in the field today that design is slowly moving in a direction where it is developing its own uniqueness and of course removing old habits not suitable for today's design challenges. Best Erik On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Terence Love <t.love@...> wrote: Dear Alireza, In looking at the trajectories of development of subfields of design, it is obvious that there are changes afoot that are much bigger than people are recognizing. This is in much the same way that many designers and design researchers haven't realized how completely computer automation has replaced many professional design practices of 20 years ago. Design activities and theories are changing very very fast - many current ideas in design research are already dead - just not yet buried! The following is how I see things. I'm aware others see things differently and some will try to cling to the past. Design research and design activity is changing significantly in several ways. The changes are particularly relevant to the Art and Design traditions of designing. They are especially significant for human-centered or user-centered design practices and research. These changes require a new way of discussing 'design' in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' and a move away from earlier ways of thinking. The central issue is the limitations of human thinking, intuition and emotion for being able to design in complex situations. Designers are unable to understand the behaviour of designs complex situations with feedback loops. If designers cannot understand the behaviours of a designed outcome then they cannot design. This issue CANNOT be resolved by consulting with stakeholders, group design, participatory design, or any consultative tools. All these tools do is convince people that they accept a faulty design. The problem is that many designers in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' are now designing in areas of complexity in which conventional design practices, design theories no longer apply (see http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2009/complex-ad.htm ). Of course, they still use traditional methods. The outcomes are faulty designs which from experience are then blamed on others - or on God (wickedness). This is an increasing trend and an increasing problem that designers are imposing on the world with the moves into Design Strategy and Social Design. In parallel to this complexity problem is the epistemic shift in which classic social and psychological approaches to understanding group and individual sense-making and behaviour are being replaced wholemeal by information coming from new disciplines.. As I see it, the significant five changes that are happening to transform 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' are: 1. Increasing tendency to address complex problems in 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' fields. This will make irrelevant all current design methods based on 'feelings', 'intuition', 'design thinking', 'participative design', consultative design' and all classic social 'group-based' design methods from the 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' fields. 2. Replacement by new understandings from cognitive-neuroscience in design theory and research of the current theory foundations of concepts of 'emotion' (as in 'design and emotion'), 'intuition', 'feelings' and 'meaning'. This is already happening in many other fields - design research is lagging. 3. Replacement of sociological, anthropological and ethnographic theories in design theory and research by new understandings from fields associated with ethology and evolutionary biology. 4. Massive increases in the mathematisation and computer-based automation of art, creativity and design of several orders greater than what we have seen in the last two decades. 5. Influence of media resulting in increased levels of directed personal automation of thinking and self-derivation of meaning. This will result in people's attitudes and ways of living increasingly aligned with their use of designed objects/situations, rather than designing outcomes to align with people's wants and understandings. Best regards, Terry |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Erik,
I'm suggesting this is a serious issue for design practice, design research and design educaiton. The most common view in the field has been as you say, that, "Designers use their developed judgement, their trained sensitivity to complexity, composition, and quality as their guiding tools." I'm making the serious suggestion that this approach and the rest of the tools of design practice (of the kind of designers that Klaus refers) don't work in anything other than simple situations. I'm suggesting that in complex situations, which is the new territory that designers and design educators are claiming to be skilled in, what is taught in design schools and is practiced by most designers doesn't work. Also, that the design research that has assumed normal design practices is also likely to be faulty. I'd be very interested in any arguments that this isn't necessarily so. Best wishes, Terry |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
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. |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Lubomir Savov Popov
::
Rate this Message:
Dear Erik and Terry,
I would like to take the chance and expand on your discussion. It is evident from your talk that there is a growing dissatisfaction with the current organization of design realities. I agree with this. I also find the subject of the discussion right on target: Let's find where we are. Human designerly activity has transitioned from the realm of the crafts to the realm of engineering. There are indications that now we are at the threshold of another transition. May be the key to designing a new process of design is to look at the broad picture, just like systems engineers do, and come to new category of solutions. Design emerged from the crafts after they evolved into and were replaced by engineering. Design is a result of a continuous trend of division of labor that grows with Modernity. Now in the age of Postmodernity, we enter into a very complex situation. The complexity of current problems require more knowledge and this leads to further specialization as a way to handle the growing amount of information, knowledge, and skills. The growing specialization leads to handicapping disjunctions. We all agree with this and talk about interdisciplinarity and multidisciplinarity. However, it is a big question whether this is the correct direction and whether this is the optimum way to go forward. I personally don't have an answer. At this time I am working on a project, which presupposes that we need to search for the solution in a post-modern intellectual environment. The paradox is that at the same time I believe in specialization and propagate specialization. I feel very comfortable with it at personal level. In this regard, I will make a proposal for a total reorganization of the project delivery system. However, within Modernist environment. That are the limits of my current resources. I can say that the optimum solution is not in the limits of Modernist thinking, but at the same time I can envisage only a solution of that kind. What is my proposal? You have already heard bits and pieces about it from my posts in the previous years. Instead of seeing Design as a system and an umbrella, and charging designers with both research and design, I would suggest that we see Project Delivery process as the system. In this way we can engage in specialization beyond design, without making designers unhappy. The research-intensive phases will be separated from core design phases. People can specialize in the research phases (but will keep expertise in design as well) so that they can tackle better the problems that emerge at these stages. What I mean is institutionalizing design programming/briefing and design evaluation as separate specializations with predominant social science nature. In architecture, this is an emerging trend. It emerges slowly, it has taken over 4 decades to come to such realization. Actually, there is even more progress in healthcare design and planning. In that domain, there is very strong notion that architectural programming has to be done by specialists that may not be the best designers, but need to be the best in researching the uses/social environment. The same is valid for the domain of Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) or Building Performance Evaluation (BPE). Actually, the field of urban planning is much ahead in this process. They have developed a system that is both based on specialization and has mechanisms for integration. They still work and think in a modernist way, but probably have reached the ceiling of modernist opportunities. Urban planning has established practices of working on all stages or phases of the project delivery process with the help of specialists, and at the same time they use procedures for integrating both expert information and expert skills in one large team that ultimately produces a design. I am not sure is it holistic or quasi-holistic. It depends on the view point and our interpretation of the nature of the Modern and the Postmodern. The procedures are very simple: teamwork and mechanical coordination between sub-teams. However, in the process of teamwork, everyone learns from the others and develops integrative background. In short, I still propagate that designers cannot be expert researchers and the project managers should understand that and hire expert (environmental design) researchers. There are already dozens and hundreds of these, but there are no jobs for them, besides a few positions in practice and academia. Evidently the problem is not with design philosophers and educators, but with design practitioners and project managers. If they can be convinced to accept a new vision about project delivery, they will probably solve the problems of design. In reality, this process has started in healthcare design under pressure of clients and users who have to operate in a very competitive realm. They have realized that they need to support to the maximum every bit of the work processes, including the use of built environment for achieving system's objectives. They have also realized that the problems that architecture resolves are social by nature, not technical. That is why they have started to look for social science specialists -- organizational designers, user needs researchers, marketers, and so on. The bottom line: Let's change the whole system. Let's go beyond design in order to improve design. Otherwise, will be bound by current design practices and at best, we might improve them a little bit. I am still searching for a Postmodernist/Deconstructivist solution, but that this time I can see only its nebulous boundaries. Which, by the way, is peculiar for the nature of Postmodernist thinking. May be I have to look for a nebulous process with nebulous configuration and emergent structure contingent on environment. History shows that people who embrace such philosophical principles easily arrive at the conclusion that any further exploration is futile by definition. If something is principally emergent, why bother to study it. By the time we understand it and conceptualize it, it will be something else and it will be one step ahead of us. The Modernist condition is so alluring with its promise of predictability that it is difficult to discard it and indulge in the world of happening and fatalism. And research is about predictability and evidence-based design. So, hurrah for Modernism and let's take a weekend break! Best wishes, Lubomir -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:PHD-DESIGN@...] On Behalf Of Erik Stolterman Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:55 AM To: PHD-DESIGN@... Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...) Dear Terence, Thanks for your interesting description of the change of design. Even though the changes you point to are in many cases real and happening, I cannot agree with your conclusions. You are correct in that the complexity in design is increasing, and I also agree that new tools can help designers to address certain aspects of that complexity, but design is still about creating something new, something that will fit an infinite complex reality, and not a problem to which more sophisticated methods and tools can find "solutions". Your five changes at the end of your post rest on a notion of design that is contrary to how I understand design. To me, you are advocating a development where design is moving into a problem solving paradigm, which to me is exactly what design should not do! Your push for a "scientification" (if that is a word) of design is clear. To me, the increased complexity in the world, leads to the opposite conclusion. Design is an approach that can deal with infinite complexity due to its different philosophy, methods and techniques. It can deal with the complexity of people's wants, needs, and desires. These problems do not have given solutions, they constantly change, people change, desires change. Reality change. It is not about finding perfect "solutions" that can be "discovered" with scientific methods, it is about being able to on a detailed level understand human conditions and create inspiring designs that support people in their handling of their lifeworlds. So, it is crucial that design as an approach recognizes its own strength and do not try to copy science or engineering in order to cope with complexity. Design can and should develop its own rationality, logic and rigor for its own purposes without copying less suitable methods from other approaches. And there are good signs in the field today that design is slowly moving in a direction where it is developing its own uniqueness and of course removing old habits not suitable for today's design challenges. Best Erik On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Terence Love <t.love@...> wrote: > Dear Alireza, > > In looking at the trajectories of development of subfields of design, it > is > obvious that there are changes afoot that are much bigger than people are > recognizing. This is in much the same way that many designers and design > researchers haven't realized how completely computer automation has > replaced > many professional design practices of 20 years ago. > > Design activities and theories are changing very very fast - many current > ideas in design research are already dead - just not yet buried! The > following is how I see things. I'm aware others see things differently and > some will try to cling to the past. > > Design research and design activity is changing significantly in several > ways. The changes are particularly relevant to the Art and Design > traditions > of designing. They are especially significant for human-centered or > user-centered design practices and research. > > These changes require a new way of discussing 'design' in 'art and design' > and 'human-centered design' and a move away from earlier ways of thinking. > > The central issue is the limitations of human thinking, intuition and > emotion for being able to design in complex situations. > Designers are unable to understand the behaviour of designs complex > situations with feedback loops. If designers cannot understand the > behaviours of a designed outcome then they cannot design. This issue CANNOT > be resolved by consulting with stakeholders, group design, participatory > design, or any consultative tools. All these tools do is convince people > that they accept a faulty design. > > The problem is that many designers in 'art and design' and 'human-centered > design' are now designing in areas of complexity in which conventional > design practices, design theories no longer apply (see > http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2009/complex-ad.htm ). Of > course, they still use traditional methods. The outcomes are faulty designs > which from experience are then blamed on others - or on God (wickedness). > This is an increasing trend and an increasing problem that designers are > imposing on the world with the moves into Design Strategy and Social > Design. > > In parallel to this complexity problem is the epistemic shift in which > classic social and psychological approaches to understanding group and > individual sense-making and behaviour are being replaced wholemeal by > information coming from new disciplines.. > > As I see it, the significant five changes that are happening to transform > 'art and design' and 'human-centered design' are: > > 1. Increasing tendency to address complex problems in 'art and design' and > 'human-centered design' fields. This will make irrelevant all current > design methods based on 'feelings', 'intuition', 'design thinking', > 'participative design', consultative design' and all classic social > 'group-based' design methods from the 'art and design' and 'human-centered > design' fields. > > 2. Replacement by new understandings from cognitive-neuroscience in design > theory and research of the current theory foundations of concepts of > 'emotion' (as in 'design and emotion'), 'intuition', 'feelings' and > 'meaning'. This is already happening in many other fields - design research > is lagging. > > 3. Replacement of sociological, anthropological and ethnographic theories > in > design theory and research by new understandings from fields associated > with > ethology and evolutionary biology. > > 4. Massive increases in the mathematisation and computer-based automation > of > art, creativity and design of several orders greater than what we have seen > in the last two decades. > > 5. Influence of media resulting in increased levels of directed personal > automation of thinking and self-derivation of meaning. This will result in > people's attitudes and ways of living increasingly aligned with their use > of > designed objects/situations, rather than designing outcomes to align with > people's wants and understandings. > > Best regards, > Terry > |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Lubomir,
Good to hear from you. How you going? I can see what you are proposing and I go along with it as it's a practical way of dealing with many of the issues. Urban planning is a really terrible example though! Failures in the ability of urban planning is the prime and most commonly example of the failures of humans to be able to think beyond a couple of feedback loops. Forrester first flagged the systemic problems with urban design in the late 60s with his Urban Dynamics (a nice intro to his work is at http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf ) and suggested design solutions and processes that still appear new and fresh 50 years later. Meadows and Sterman pointed to similar problems and offered similar solutions. From what I see here in Australia (which has good status for state-of-art Urban Planning) the problems of not addressing multiple feedback loops in planning hasn't changed much in urban planning practice. It's interesting to see, for example, planners zoning areas and then after everything is built only then starting to plan how economic development is going to happen. Here in Perth, Western Australia, there are several obvious planning issues with multiple feedback loops that could be modeled to give deep insights into identifying more successful planning designs. Even with very simple dynamic modeling it's evident that improved design solutions and outcomes would be very different from what has been developed via linear feedbackless policies and planning strategies. Warm regrds, terry Lubomir wrote: Actually, the field of urban planning is much ahead in this process. They have developed a system that is both based on specialization and has mechanisms for integration. They still work and think in a modernist way, but probably have reached the ceiling of modernist opportunities. Urban planning has established practices of working on all stages or phases of the project delivery process with the help of specialists, and at the same time they use procedures for integrating both expert information and expert skills in one large team that ultimately produces a design. I am not sure is it holistic or quasi-holistic. It depends on the view point and our interpretation of the nature of the Modern and the Postmodern. The procedures are very simple: teamwork and mechanical coordination between sub-teams. However, in the process of teamwork, everyone learns from the others and develops integrative background. |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Erik,
Remember the old days of graphic design? Remember Letraset and rubbing scalpel-cut slivers of coloured sheets of transparency onto a backing paper? Remember the kinds of designs that used to be produced that were based on these tools? Remember when Adobe allowed one to use a transparent view of a graphic within a letter outline and suddenly all web pages had letter outlines that were windows into photographs... The type of creative design output that designers produce is dominated by the technical tools of designers - far more than the illusion that designers are 'intrinsically creative'. You wrote: "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." I'm suggesting the situation is different - that the use of new tools to address complex design situations will radically transform current design processes. I'm suggesting that design practices and design processes will need to dramatically change from what is taught and practiced now if designers are to design well in complex arenas. These radical changes in how designing will be taught and practiced are a natural need and consequence of using the new tools to understand complex situations. For many designers this idea the design practice and process are dependent on tools designers use is not a new idea. For example, for product designers it is obvious that the availability of 3D drawing tools well adapted to plastic molding techniques (in SolidWorks for e.g.) resulted in different design processes from those that preceded. The complex design issue is the same change on steroids because it also addresses a deep-seated limitation in designers ability to think and at the same time resolves a lot of the problems of collaborative design. It is also a case of The future is already here - it is just unevenly distributed' (Gibson). Designers and design researchers in other fields were seeing this 40 years or more ago. I've attached a short snippet from Forrester's writing in the late 1960s about design that involves people both as users and collaborators in the design process in complex social design. He draws attention to the design weakness caused by the inconsistencies, incompleteness and transient nature of designers' mental models and the gap between what designers think will happen and what does happen, and argues a different form of design process is revealed by using complex system design tools. Best wishes, Terry ========== J. W. Forrester - based on testimony for the Subcommittee on Urban Growth of the Committee on Banking and Currency, U.S. House of Representatives, on October 7, 1970. Social systems are far more complex and harder to understand than technological systems. Why then do we not use the same approach of making models of social systems and conducting laboratory experiments before adopting new laws and government programs? The customary answer assumes that our knowledge of social systems is not sufficient for constructing useful models. But what justification can there be for assuming that we do not know enough to construct models of social systems but believe we do know enough to directly redesign social systems by passing laws and starting new programs? I suggest that we now do know enough to make useful models of social systems. Conversely, we do not know enough to design the most effective social policies directly without first going through a model-building experimental phase. Substantial supporting evidence is accumulating that proper use of models of social systems can lead to far better systems, laws, and programs. Realistic laboratory models of social systems can now be constructed. Such models are simplifications of actual systems, but computer models can be far more comprehensive than the mental models that would otherwise be used. Before going further, please realize that there is nothing new in the use of models to represent social systems. Each of us uses models constantly. Every person in private life and in business instinctively uses models for decision making. The mental images in one's head about one's surroundings are models. One's head does not contain real families, businesses, cities, governments, or countries. One uses selected concepts and relationships to represent real systems. A mental image is a model. All decisions are taken on the basis of models. All laws are passed on the basis of models. All executive actions are taken on the basis of models. The question is not to use or ignore models. The question is only a choice among alternative models. Mental models are fuzzy, incomplete, and imprecisely stated. Furthermore, within a single individual, mental models change with time, even during the flow of a single conversation. The human mind assembles a few relationships to fit the context of a discussion. As debate shifts, so do the mental models. Even when only a single topic is being discussed, each participant in a conversation employs a different mental model to interpret the subject. Fundamental assumptions differ but are never brought into the open. Goals are different but left unstated. It is little wonder that compromise takes so long. And even when consensus is reached, the underlying assumptions may be fallacies that lead to laws and programs that fail. The human mind is not adapted to understanding correctly the consequences implied by a mental model. A mental model may be correct in structure and assumptions but, even so, the human mind--either individually or as a group consensus--is apt to draw the wrong implications for the future. Inability of the human mind to use its own mental models becomes clear when a computer model is constructed to reproduce the assumptions contained in a person's mental model. The computer model is refined until it fully agrees with the perceptions of a particular person or group. Then, usually, the system that has been described does not act the way the people anticipated. There are internal contradictions in mental models between assumed structure and assumed future consequences. Ordinarily assumptions about structure and internal governing policies are more nearly correct than are the assumptions about implied behavior. By contrast to mental models, system dynamics simulation models are explicit about assumptions and how they interrelate. Any concept that can be clearly described in words can be incorporated in a computer model. Constructing a computer model forces clarification of ideas. Unclear and hidden assumptions are exposed so they may be examined and debated. The primary advantage of a computer simulation model over a mental model lies in the way a computer model can reliably determine the future dynamic consequences of how the assumptions within the model interact with one another. ==== Full text available http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Wolfgang Jonas
::
Rate this Message:
Dear Terry and Erik,
this is an interesting and important discussion, thanks. As someone who has been applying those systemic tools in design (research) education and practice for many years I cannot contain myself from commenting. One of my frequent experiences in projects is that after having collectively CREATED one of those nice system diagrams (see Terry´s obesity example) students tend to regard them as representations of reality. They simply forget that they have designed the model and now they see it as a kind of solution machine which should generate proper answers. Maybe this is because building those models requires following some meaningful steps and integrating scientific knowledge etc. It takes a lot of effort and discussion to tell them that it is their own creation and their own interpretation of the situation. Sometimes this is followed by slight disappointment on the students´ side, because they were so happy to have this rational instrument. In more abstract terms: We have to conduct the shift from 1st order cybernetics (seeing this as an objective representation of reality) to 2nd order cybernetics (seeing the map as a document which describes how a group of stakeholders with specific interests and purposes describes the situation at a certain moment in time). Once this has been done and understood, then these representations are extremely helpful as discoursive tools for structuring the debate of students / stakeholders. And they are useful for very practical reasons: they indicate pos. and neg. feedback loops, they identify points of intervention, they warn of critical factors, etc. Of course, if you want to anser what-if? questions or if you want to execute simulations, then you have to consider these models temporarily as "prediction machines". But, again, the predictions they provide have to be interpreted and debated and contextualized. The great benefit of those methods is that they support clarity and transparency - but not so much regarding objective reality but regarding the complex network of factors and viewpoints and knowledge and terminologies that the different stakeholders in a situation contribute. One idea comes to my mind: this experience describes - in a nutshell - what happened in the Design Methods Movement some decades ago. There was the great enthusiasm regarding "scientific" approaches, but it turned out that it was not so trivial to use them in design processes. The reaction was the well-known theoretical / methodological backlash of the 1970s and 1980s: no methods. In my view, to become a bit more abstract again: the art of design research lies in reconciling those two conflicting positions. This means performing this play with various observer perspectives (from immediate involvement to complete separation) in design with virtuosity. To use these tools, scientific input, etc. for the purpose of the design (research) process, which is mostly different from the purposes of scientific research processes. Just a thought. Jonas __________ At 9:21 Uhr +0200 20.09.2009, Erik Stolterman wrote: >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 <t.love@...> 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. >> >> >> >> >> |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Lubomir Savov Popov
::
Rate this Message:
Hi Terry,
I would gently disagree with you about urban planning. While the system is not perfect and there are many complaints, in my humble opinion, it is the most advanced system compared to other environmental design systems. Mechanical engineering might be more advanced and integrated, as well as a number of other areas. However, considering several types of artistic and environmental design, urban planning can be used as a paragon for its interdisciplinary, mechanisms of integration, and consideration for the social and human condition. Most of the problems in contemporary, modernist urban planning stem not from the nature of the discipline and practice itself, but from outside. There is disproportional and murderous pressure from political circles and special interest groups. Let's see one of the examples that you offer. Every urban planner knows that they have to start with the economic plan. It is actually the sociocultural design program, it is the equivalent of the architectural program at building scale. However, in the example you have provided the process is overturned, most probably under heavy outside pressure. Without excusing the shortcomings of the urban planning process, it is still the most developed within the modernist paradigm. I mean environmental design, aesthetic design, and a few other related areas. Keep in mind that in urban initiatives we are talking about millions, hundreds of millions, and billions of dollars/Euros. People kill for such money. Can you imagine the pressure on urban planners and politicians? Even mighty politicians are under pressure from their sponsors. A carefully executed scheme with land improvements can bring millions of dollars. In most cases, a proposed solution serves the interests of a powerful interest group and hurts the competing interest group, while the general population simply dies because of that solution. (In this text, interest group is an euphemism for murky business groups.) It is not up to the planners to deal with this. The forces and power are beyond their reach. So much about politics in urban planning. That is one of the reasons I declined to go in that area despite of huge research grants and seemingly enriching experience. When we factor in all the pressures, it is a hell. No room for experts and expert opinion. Experts are needed only to find any kind of justification for what the urban czars want. Now, you might say that this is actually the core of the problem with improving the process. However, at this time, I am not thinking about shaking the world. Best, Lubomir -----Original Message----- From: Terence Love [mailto:t.love@...] Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 4:13 AM To: Lubomir Savov Popov; PHD-DESIGN@... Subject: RE: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...) Hi Lubomir, Good to hear from you. How you going? I can see what you are proposing and I go along with it as it's a practical way of dealing with many of the issues. Urban planning is a really terrible example though! Failures in the ability of urban planning is the prime and most commonly example of the failures of humans to be able to think beyond a couple of feedback loops. Forrester first flagged the systemic problems with urban design in the late 60s with his Urban Dynamics (a nice intro to his work is at http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf ) and suggested design solutions and processes that still appear new and fresh 50 years later. Meadows and Sterman pointed to similar problems and offered similar solutions. From what I see here in Australia (which has good status for state-of-art Urban Planning) the problems of not addressing multiple feedback loops in planning hasn't changed much in urban planning practice. It's interesting to see, for example, planners zoning areas and then after everything is built only then starting to plan how economic development is going to happen. Here in Perth, Western Australia, there are several obvious planning issues with multiple feedback loops that could be modeled to give deep insights into identifying more successful planning designs. Even with very simple dynamic modeling it's evident that improved design solutions and outcomes would be very different from what has been developed via linear feedbackless policies and planning strategies. Warm regrds, terry Lubomir wrote: Actually, the field of urban planning is much ahead in this process. They have developed a system that is both based on specialization and has mechanisms for integration. They still work and think in a modernist way, but probably have reached the ceiling of modernist opportunities. Urban planning has established practices of working on all stages or phases of the project delivery process with the help of specialists, and at the same time they use procedures for integrating both expert information and expert skills in one large team that ultimately produces a design. I am not sure is it holistic or quasi-holistic. It depends on the view point and our interpretation of the nature of the Modern and the Postmodern. The procedures are very simple: teamwork and mechanical coordination between sub-teams. However, in the process of teamwork, everyone learns from the others and develops integrative background. |
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by David Sless
::
Rate this Message:
Hi All,
The question being discussed has been an important part of my own research over the last thirty years. I would therefore like to contribute fully to this thread, but time and other duties prevent it. I shall confine myself to a central issue, one that will be familiar to those of you who know my work, but may be new to some of the phd students on this list. Start, if you like,with Simon's definition of design as "transformation of existing conditions into preferred ones". We could start with other definitions, but this will do to illustrate the point. As designers, we get very excited about the 'preferred conditions'. However, we often neglect or take as given the 'existing conditions'. This, I have discovered in my own little area of design, is a serious and costly omission in our design process. Simply put, if we, in our design practice do not measure the existing conditions carefully, any attempt to claim that we have brought about 'preferred conditions' are hollow. Moreover, as we have also discovered, by measuring existing conditions we find it is much cheaper and quicker to bring about the preferred conditions. This is a rather generalised and abstract way of making a simple practical point. I could elaborate but most of the evidence for this is in the many published case histories on our web site. In particular, it's worth looking at what we do in what we call the Benchmarking Stage. This Benchmarking Stage is pivotal to the design process we use. I would not claim that this approach is relevant to other areas of design, but in our own little area it means that we are able to work in increasingly complex situations, bringing about measurably 'preferred conditions'. Apart from the fact that we are (of course) brilliantly creative designers, I would put this success down to careful Benchmarking at the outset of a project, followed by careful Testing, Implementing and Monitoring. Having said this, I would agree that in the 'art and design' education systems, there is a long way to go before one could even begin to train students in these processes, even at post graduate level. As for this list, and the potential phd's it seeks to nurture. I think it is irresponsible of design researchers—many of our heroes and members of this list included—to claim that there is something special about design in bringing about 'preferred conditions', when they take so little time to investigate and value 'existing conditions'. The time for publishing manifestos is over. David -- blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog web: http://www.communication.org.au |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
by Terence Love-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi David,
I think we are seeing things very similarly on this. You describe the situation better. Your message raises two points and I'll respond to the second one in a separate email. I agree with you that for designers that craft their design solutions, their design activities and processes are shaped by the reality of their craft and the techniques they have available to them. An example, when silver was only available as a soft material, there were a specific range of design methods that were appropriate. The advent of stronger and stiffer silver alloys provide the basis for new design processes that enable new types of designs. (BTW I'd love to get my hands on a bit of Argentium to see how it compares with other strong malleable alloys!) My personal design experiences confirm your comments. My initial work in design was very hands on - very much in the style advocated by Chris Rust. I would manufacture my designs and they would provide inspirations for new ways of looking at things and inspirations for new and better designs. My designs and design methods were very much based on deep experience of working with materials. The approach was way too slow and I found I was impatient with it. Computers and design methods helped speed things up to get to better designs! At the end of the day, however, what was designed and how it was designed was limited by the tools of design and manufacture. Some of these tools were the tools of craft and manufacture, others were tools for design thinking. In my post to Erik I was suggesting that there are strong links between the tools designers use (abstract, craft and computerised), the design processes they use and the designed outcomes they produce. I can't think of an example that this linkage doesn't apply. If you know of examples, I'd love to hear about them. Warm regards, Terry === Dr. Terence Love, PhD, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629 Mobile: +61 (0)434 975 848 t.love@... www.love.com.au === Terry David wrote: Much of what you say simply doesn't fit my understanding either of design education nor the advances that are being made in the best design practices. And it certainly does not fit with the intensely hands-on subject specialisms such as fashion, crafts, jewellery, ceramics, glass and so on. ... One example of counter argument - and one that I believe is a much more serious issue - is the loss of understanding of 3D form, texture, and user handling through the unthinking use of CAD tools. As an external examiner I have seen so many examples of undergraduate students using sophisticated CAD tools and producing product designs that look terrific in the visuals, and seem convincing at a certain level, but would be quite impossible or difficult to manufacture or use. ... The more weakly creative students - those who find it difficult to think in the round about designing - will always resort to glittering tools to produce designs that on the surface are attractive, but that's often as far as it goes. The better designers are not 'dominated' by the technical tools, they use them as extensions to their creativity. |
|
|
Forrester's snip (was : Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...))
by Jean Schneider
::
Rate this Message:
Thanks Terry for the link and the excerpt.
What I find fascinating is the neo-platonician approach to modelling reality... not to mention that the comparison between a mental model and a formal model is questionnable, if not a flaw. A kind of testimony of the good old times... But it says something quite deep about the discussion that is running as well. Regards, Jean **************************** Inability of the human mind to use its own mental models becomes clear when a computer model is constructed to reproduce the assumptions contained in a person's mental model. The computer model is refined until it fully agrees with the perceptions of a particular person or group. Then, usually, the system that has been described does not act the way the people anticipated. There are internal contradictions in mental models between assumed structure and assumed future consequences. Ordinarily assumptions about structure and internal governing policies are more nearly correct than are the assumptions about implied behaviour. By contrast to mental models, system dynamics simulation models are explicit about assumptions and how they interrelate. Any concept that can be clearly described in words can be incorporated in a computer model. Constructing a computer model forces clarification of ideas. Unclear and hidden assumptions are exposed so they may be examined and debated. The primary advantage of a computer simulation model over a mental model lies in the way a computer model can reliably determine the future dynamic consequences of how the assumptions within the model interact with one another. ==== Full text available http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4468-2.pdf |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
