Forgive me, this post is going to be lengthy. This was a paper I worked on for my Design Theory class with Erik Stolterman (author of The Design Way, go read it!). I wanted to put it here as sort of a launching point for other reflections/thoughts on design because my views of the field are always evolving as I grow and learn and gain more experience. Now that you’ve been warned, here it goes!

What is design?

What does it mean to design something? These are questions that don’t have a definitive answer but we all have a general understanding of what it means. Heskett does an admirable attempt at defining design and I think it’s a definition that most would agree with.“Design, stripped to its essence, can be defined as the human capacity to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature, to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives.” I think it’s easy enough to form an argument that design is at the core of what it means to be human, what separates us from other species. A common understanding/belief about design is that it’s a form of problem solving.

I’ve been reading about design as problem solving ever since I became interested in the field. We’re taught to look at what’s being asked of us, be it by a client or a class project, and [re]frame it in such a way that it becomes a solvable problem. One of the popular ways of doing this is by turning the brief into a “How might we…” statement. This, however, is just one of the many methodologies for [re]framing a problem.

One of the biggest changes that I’ve noticed in my personal design thinking is this notion of problem solving. Our discussion in class on the Hatchuel critique of Herbert Simon’s work really made me question this interpretation of design as problem solving. Hatchuel makes the argument that if anything, problem solving is actually a restricted form of design. This makes a lot of sense to me and has really made me look at design in a new light. I like to define designing as a process that starts with a goal or objective, for which (at least) a definable concept or idea is created, which contains distinguishable factors from those which already exist. That’s a fairly broad statement but I really do believe that design is that big. It’s a somewhat abstracted version of Simon’s “changing existing situations into preferred ones.” The only real difference is that it’s not always preferred. Design is an interesting thing, as it can have negative side effects. As Nelson and Stolterman call it, design can be “evil.” It’s not always a matter of intention or purposeful malevolence; all designs have repercussions of some kind and it’s our job to ensure that we do our best to think of those prior to implementing a solution.

I like to define designing as a process that starts with a goal or objective, for which (at least) a definable concept or idea is created, which contains distinguishable factors from those which already exist.

So, can design be problem solving? Certainly but often times we’re just creating something to make our lives a little easier or designing a luxury item. I don’t think that we have to limit ourselves to that simple interpretation of design. I believe half of this argument is simply an issue of semantics. Using the words problem and solution allows for everyone to have an equal understanding of what is going on. There is a problem that has to be identified and then it must be solved.

I prefer to look at it as goals and end results. What needs to be accomplished and what is created in order to accomplish it? There’s always something that needs to be fixed, changed, reworked, solved, etc. and by doing so it will have an impact on somebody, something, somewhere. That being said, in the rest of this paper, I’ll still refer to it as a problem and a solution, just to make sure it’s clear what I’m talking about.

With this notion of designing as problem solving, there’s a big push for designers to really know their process and be able to articulate just what it is they do and all of that. I still have mixed feelings on this. For me, the design process is what it is and everyone in our field is familiar with it. What’s different is the way in which we all think about and approach problems. We all do research, have empathy, make prototypes, conduct tests, iterate, etc. but we don’t all view the world through the same lens. Everyone brings a unique view to the table and for me, that’s what really makes your process different.

It’s interesting that as designers, we often times have our own personal activities and methodologies to help us cope with these complex problems that we’re faced with on a regular basis. Galle talks about this in his paper, saying that “the way designers conceive of the nature and purpose of design will affect their practice.” This seems like common sense, and it mostly is, but it’s really interesting just how much our own experiences and ideologies influence the way in which we practice design.

“…the way designers conceive of the nature and purpose of design will affect their practice.” -Per Galle

Some of the activities that are a part of my personal design process are reflection, abstraction, meditation, divergent thinking, and metaphors. These are all activities that help me look at a design challenge in a new way or to look back on past projects to see what I did good and what I might improve upon. Abstraction is a way to try and look at a problem or space in a different way. For example, starting with “the post office is a government operated facility that allows for equal and affordable access to delivering and receiving physical items.” This can be abstracted all the way out to “the post office allows for equal access to distribution of goods.” Of course, there are a number of in-between points as well and it can probably be pushed even further but the goal of abstraction is to try and get to the root of something and to really understand the motives behind it.

Divergent thinking is very similar but it’s more of an ideation/brainstorming activity. The common example is a paper clip. How many potential uses can you think of? The goal is to really be creative and push the boundaries and limitations of a paper clip as we know it. What if it were 200 feet tall and covered in foam? What if it had a horn on the end of it? What if you bent it into the shape of a triangle? This really helps me start to think of different ideas and not be so restricted by existing uses. Often times we get caught up in the competitiveness of school and business and forget that this should be fun and creative.

Meditation has been a useful technique for me for quite some time. I find that by simply taking 10-15 minutes a day to really be mindful and sort of shut my brain off, I become much more focused and creative. It’s an activity that many people don’t associate with the design process but I have found it beneficial.

Another activity that I’ve found useful is to design using metaphors. This was a concept that Donald Schön talked about, saying that “metaphors are simple notions, easily held in the mind, but they stand for complex families of ideas.” It’s very similar to abstraction and divergent thinking in then sense that you’re trying to familiarize yourself with it. Compare it to something that you know already. It’s about trying to figure out what happens if you change it and shape it into something else that you’re familiar with. “What if coffee mugs were more like snow jackets?” Sure, it’s often times crazy, but it really helps you start to see things through a lens that you’re already familiar with, thereby making it easier to understand. I’ve found a number of tips and techniques in books and online that have really helped me with my design process. Having that desire to look for help and find out more about design is key to becoming an expert. Remaining open and have a desire to continue learning and growing is so important.

Something that really stuck out to me in the Vitruvius reading was this idea of architects (substitute for designers) as learners. He talks about how important it is for designers to have a vast amount of knowledge in different areas. I think it’s incredibly important for designers to know a lot about everything. We work on so many different projects and spaces that its imperative we have at least a little bit of knowledge about these things. More importantly, we have to be willing to dig deeply into an area and learn as much as we can about it in a short period of time. There’s so much information that we have to sift through in order to find the important stuff.

Design is about wading through all of the complexities in order to find the simplicity that lies within. Sustainability, poverty, starvation, clean energy – these are all incredibly complex problems that may take years or even entire careers just to begin to understand all of the variables that are involved. I firmly believe that within that complexity lies a plethora of simple solutions that will incrementally begin to make positive changes. Too often designers try to solve complex problems with one massive, complicated design solution and it becomes so muddled that no one understands it. What makes a designer truly great is the ability to take all of that information and siphon it down into a simple, digestible format. I really enjoy Siegel and Beck’s paper on Slow Change Interaction Design. In it, it’s proposed that behavioral change can come about through incremental goals over time. I don’t think it should stop at behavioral change. I think these slow change principles of design can be applied to many complex problems in order to implement lasting and meaningful solutions.

Design is about wading through all of the complexities in order to find the simplicity that lies within.

We’re at an interesting point in design where we’re looking to start grounding our practice in theory. There have been many attempts to scientize design, according to Cross, really starting in the 60s with Herbert Simon, who pushed for the development of “a science of design.” Most designers can agree that design is not science, therefore, design theory cannot be the same as scientific theory. That being said, there are many who still believe design theory can have some of the same principles and standards as scientific theory or can even be scientific theories of design, without ‘scientizing’ design. One that really stood out to me was the paper by Beck and Stolterman where they were seeking to test the scientificness of several design theories, using some of Karl Popper’s criteria for a scientific theory: falsifiability, refutability, or testability.

It’s an interesting analysis and shows that we can indeed create scientific theories of design without ‘scientizing’ it. Friedman states that some designers believe that theory will take away from the artistic side of design but he argues, and I agree, that this isn’t true. He says that “a study of design based on profound knowledge embraces the empirical world of people and problems in a deeper way than purely self-generated artistry can do.” This is an important realization and we move towards a more structured and rigorous design theory process. Stolterman says it best in his The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research article when he says that “design research aimed at improving design practice has to be grounded in a deep understanding of the nature of design practice.”

I hope that as I continue to develop my design philosophy and reflect on the skills and knowledge that I’m picking up throughout my career, I’ll be able to develop expertise in design. According to Cross, there’s not yet a mutual understanding of what constitutes expertise in design, but it is accepted that the only way to get there is by “deliberate practice and training.”

 

References

Beck and Stolterman. Scientific Theories of Designing.

Beck and Siegel. Slow Change Interaction Design.

Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science.

Expertise in design: an overview.

Donald Schö Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center.

Friedman. Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.

Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Program of Herbert Simon.

Nelson and Stolterman. The Design Way.

Per Galle. Foundational and Instrumental Design Theory.

Rittel. The Reasoning of Designers. 

The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research.