Category Archives: research

The end of an era: reflective practice

I am entitled to be just a little dramatic with my headline as I have now officially completed my thesis. Those who follow me on twitter would have noticed the excited tweets. I know that many have been asking me for my thesis, and I can assure you that it will be published online within the week- there are just a few more hidden hoops to jump before i can publish it, but more on that in a bit…

So, I figured now is a good time to reflect on the journey that was the almighty PhD pilgrimage into academic enlightenment. This is less of a practice-based post and so perhaps it will be of more interest, or use, to those considering an academic pathway or who perhaps are curious as to what to do after a PhD. I have chosen to write this based on the most common questions and comments i received during and after my studies and will conclude with hopefully some helpful advice.

 

Common question #238: What is the point of doing a PhD, let alone in design?

Depending on your definition of influence and impact, this question is (imho) often expressed out of naivety and ignorance. However, I can see how someone can construct the argument that a PhD is pointless, but it all comes down to value and perspective. If you value the pursuit, tradition and history of scholarly practice, you will understand how humbling it is to contribute to a long history of reflections, insights and theories from many scholars and practitioners committed to evolve and expand knowledge. But if you are of a more practical nature, the analysis, reflection and documentation may seem superfluous, and often at times, outdated to current trends.

It is true that you do a PhD in order to obtain a license to work as a researcher. It is also true that in many instances research is often a few steps behind practice. But what is not true is the assumption that the skills you acquire in doing a PhD are impractical for the “real world” (my most loathed statement. What is the “real world”, anyway? and to whom?). I am in the very fortunate position to have come out of academia and be able to return to industry practice in the field that I studied. So I can attest to the many transferrable skills developed in studying for a PhD:

(These are particular to qualitative/case-study PhD’s and to design practice)

  1. Writing skills. This is a highly valuable skill in general, but particularly if you are required to write reports, proposals, thought leadership, etc.
  2. Strategy. I really believe most PhD’s are highly strategic. You have to scan the field for untapped opportunities then assess many multiple theories, options, and methods for your plan of attack. As I now work in strategy (or strategic design), which involves both strategy and design research, I have realised that much of the formative ‘fuzzy’ front end of design thinking is very similar to the process of PhD research.
  3. Critical thinking. Well, you can’t find a better place to develop critical thinking than through graduate research. And I challenge anyone to dispute how valuable critical thinking is in most industry based practice (except, maybe, for the arts?)
  4. Public speaking and presenting. I also don’t think anything could prepare you better for client pitches like a review board of professors and/or conference presentations. PhD’s are perhaps best adept at forming and presenting arguments whilst defending anticipated rebuttals.
  5. Field research. This is specific to those who conducted primary research and may end up working in a design field or industry applying a design/thinking process that requires field/ethnographic research. As mentioned earlier, the design, methods, analysis and synthesis inherent in design practice are the fundamental building blocks for completing a PhD.
  6. Articulation of ideas. Particularly if you are client-facing, being able to clearly and coherently articulate your point/ideas across and in a way that is intellectually accessible to those around you who may not come from your depth of knowledge, is an incredibly persuasive asset.

I am sure there are many more I could think of, but these are the PhD skills I use most often on a day to day basis in my work.

 

Common question #592: Why didn’t you stay in academia?

There are a few reasons why I didn’t continue down the academic path right now. To be brutally honest, I wanted a rounded career and feared that if I continued with a career in academia I would be labelled an ‘out of touch academic’. This is unfortunately a reality for most academics, even if it (most often) is not true. It is very hard to return to industry after a PhD, (at least in Australia, it seems) let alone after working as an academic for many years. Despite the fact that I already had industry practice, I wanted to obtain more industry experience related to my thesis. I am still open to the idea of returning to academia (hint hint) and will continue to publish from my thesis. Right now the thought of remaining on a very low salary after four years of a near-poverty-wage scholarship is simply suffocating.

clark-griswold-credit-card-atm-cash-and-smile

id like to know what having money feels like

 

Common question #475: What are your reflections on academia and practice?

I will keep my thoughts brief, as I am currently writing a deeper blog post on this topic. But the TL;DR of it is that, as an academic, you have much more time and freedom to exhaustively reflect on a topic and come to a deeper and more insightful conclusion. Industry has no tolerance for time-consuming, self-indulgent activities like reflective practice. For the most part, this reflection is not needed.. but I feel it is incredibly important if we are going to aim for creativity, let alone innovation, in any kind of practice. Again, this is where a PhD graduate could really add value and particularly if from a design background.

 

So to those still studying for their doctoral thesis- know that you have a choice and that there are options beyond just a post-doc. Present your skills in the right context and language to the industry you are applying and you will find that you have much more to offer beyond the assumption that academics are “just thinkers”. One good thought is worth more than a thousand mindless prototypes.

 

(Watch this space for a post that contains my thesis)

 

The underrated writings of Bruce Archer

Well looks like we can all just pack up on design thinking and call it a day!

There is an author that i had left out of my initial posts on the history and development behind design thinking, and his name is Bruce Archer. Bruce is not as well known as some of the other fundamental theorists in design such as Schon, Rittel and Webber and Simon….and frankly, i dont understand why he isn’t a household name. Mr.Archer’s writings and thinking on design are as innovative and groundbreaking (imho) as the authors we commonly associate with design theory. This is because everything that we are still struggling with, writing about today has been discussed and clarified by Bruce, way back in the first generation of design theory. The innovativeness of his thinking at such an early and formative time for design is reason why i believe he deserves more accolade than current researchers have provided.

So why did i leave Bruce out of my posts on the history of design thinking? Well, like most of you, i had undervalued his ideas…primarily because he wasn’t as widely cited and referenced as other authors. If researchers don’t get the citation ball rolling by deeming an author appropriate and worthy of recognition, it can create a vicious cycle of ignorance. As i have been cleaning up my thesis for submission i had read over a few references that i scattered around from Bruce. Upon re-evaluation i realised that his ideas were quite innovative, and upon further research, came to the conclusion that Archer is one of design’s hidden gems. I make it sound like he was a nobody, and he certainly wasn’t. Bruce’s name is known within academic design circles, and even has a place in the timeline of design thinking on Wikipedia, (heck, he was part of the establishment of the design methods movement). Yet, i still feel (from reading many theses in design) that his significance is disgracefully under represented.

Who is Bruce Archer?

Bruce was scientifically gifted but an artist at heart. He was educated as a mechanical engineer, a career (according to Wikipedia) he was pushed into and away from the arts which was where is interest lay. Soon enough, he was able to transition into industrial design and became a design researcher, establishing a department for design research at the Royal College of Art that ran for 25 years. Bruce contributed significantly to research on establishing design as an academic discipline, and in doing so, contributed towards the definition of design as a practice. This is what i want to highlight here in this post. Most of what i will be discussing here are ideas from an article by Bruce titled, Systematic Method for Designers, found in Developments in Design Methodology that was first published in 1965. Cutting the ramble short, here are my reasons for why Bruce needs to be elevated to design Dumbledore status

1.Bruce is perhaps the first to use/coin the term “design thinking”*

(*to my current knowledge- fyi THIS IS A PRETTY MONUMENTAL DISCOVERY!!)

Design thinking, as a general concept and theory underpinning design practice, has been discussed in various depths throughout design history. Hopefully i have made this case clear in my history of design thinking. But the exact term itself, that is the exact words “design” and “thinking” used together and in context of a designerly approach, was first known to be published by Peter Rowe in 1987 in his book Design Thinking. Some people have tried to establish an earlier reference of the phrase, and perhaps there does exist some exact references prior to Rowe’s 1987 text, but i have doubts if there is a reference that can be found earlier than what i found from Archer… In his article Systematic Method for Designers first published in 1965, during the first generation of design theory, Archer comments on the changing landscape of industrial design:

In the face of this situation there has been a world wide shift in emphasis from the sculptural to the technological. Ways had to be found to incorporate the knowledge of ergonomics, cybernetics, marketing and management science into design thinking. (p.57)

Here is a screenshot if incase you don’t believe me

Screen Shot 2015-04-19 at 2.24.30 pm

!!! ! Screen Shot 2015-04-19 at 2.25.03 pm !!!!

Here, Bruce relates the term “design thinking” to the cognitive and multidisciplinary practice becoming of industrial designers. Let’s just all take a moment to let this sink in. #mindblown.

2. Bruce offers us a damn good definition of design

Us design research monkeys have chased our tail and thrown a few faeces tantrums, trying to assimilate the often disparate characteristics and disciplines of design. Bruce had already established his definition of design that perhaps could have saved us a lot of time and trouble

Before we can look at the systematic methods of designers, we must know what we mean by ‘design’. An architect preparing plans for a house is clearly designing. So is a typographer preparing a layout for a page of print. But a sculptor shaping a figure is not. What is the difference? A key element in the act of designing is the formulation of a prescription or model for a finished work in advance of its embodiment. When a sculptor produces a cartoon for his proposed work, only then can he be said to be designing it. (p.58)

Now compare the above phrase with:

The intellectual activity that produces material artifacts is no different fundamentally from the one that prescribes remedies for a sick patient or the one that devises a new sales plan for a company or a social welfare policy for a state.” (Simon, p.111)

 Sounds a lot like Herbert Simon doesn’t it? Simon published the above text in Sciences of the Artificial in 1969 mind you, a good four years after this article.

Bruce goes on in his discussion on a definition of design, adding details and characteristics that paint a pretty good holistic picture of design practice and thinking that (unlike some other historical attempts) is applicable to design practice today. I have summarised Bruce’s definition of design for you:

Bruce Archer’s definition of design:

1. There has to be a prior “formulation of a prescription or model for a finished work in advance of its embodiment” (p.58)

2. The prescribed formula or model must be embodied in/as an artefact

“ Hence the formulation of the idea for an office filing system may be designing, so long as it anticipates the laying down of ‘hardware’. Similarly, the discovery of a chemical formula in general is not designing, but the prescription of a formula for (say) a new plastics material may be” (p.58)

3. There must be a creative step in the process

“There is also a sense in which the act of arriving at a solution by strict calculation is not regarded as designing {…} it is characteristic of creative solutions (and often the most successful designs) that they are seen to be apt solutions- but after completion and not before” (p.58)

4. It must have purpose. Intent over exploration.

“ It implies purposeful seeking of solutions than idle exploration” (p.59)

5. It is intuitive but not spontaneous

“ In this sense the composition of music, for example, although in many ways analogous, is not designing” (p.58)

6. It must begin with a need

7. It must reconcile

“We have already said that the art of designing is the art of reconciliation […] reconciliation implies that conflict is resolved” (p.60)

8. It must be holistic and consider the artefact in a system and not of itself

“The current tendancy in design, as in many other fields, is to try to consider the whole system of which the product is part, instead of considering the product as a self contained object” (p.60)

9. Design problems are complex (oh hey Rittel & Webber who published wicked problems 8 years later…)

“A single design problem is a complex of a thousand or more sub problems. […] But although each sub problem can be resolved so as to produce and optimum solution, or even a field of acceptable solutions, the hard part of the task is to reconcile the solutions of sub problems with one another.” (p.62)

10. Design is about the optimisation of solutions (sorry simon you were also 4 years too late)

“Often, where the optimum solution of one sub problem competes the acceptance of a poor solution in the other, the designer is forced to decide which of the two take priority” (p.62)

3. Bruce recognised that computers could never replace design thinking and judgement

I find this a rather silly argument that many from engineering/computer science fields still like to throw around. Artificial Intelligence isn’t at the stage of achieving complete rational and emotional judgment and i hardly think it will happen for some time (and if it does, it wont replace designers).

But ill let Bruce do the talking: “Although resolving a large number of sub problems and their combinations and permutations is the very thing that computers are good at, it is unlikely that any computer will replace the designer in the role of criterion giver or judgment maker – at least for a very long time to come.” (p.63)

4. Bruce realised we could never come to some kind of agreement on a definition of design

“Unfortunately, the science of design method has not yet reached a degree of sophistication which will permit the use of agreed axioms, or even the use of an agreed terminology. The several scattered research workers in this field each have their own favorite models, techniques and jargon. However, a certain amount of common ground is emerging. For example, a basic breakdown of the nature of design procedure is largely agreed, although there are some differences about whether it should be described in threes tages, four or six. The present author favors six” (p.64)

I like his no BS approach, stating that there is “jargon” in definitions of design, much like we find today in design thinking. What i find humorous about this statement is “a certain amount of common ground is emerging”. I think i have read this about design practice and design thinking in texts over the last 20 years. Yet, in particular to design thinking, there are more publications stating that there is no consensus or common ground on a definition. I think its funny that the fundamental core of our research and practice has been consistently confused since 1965.

5. Bruce recognised that design problems are fuzzy and unclear

“Most designers, good and bad, find that the problems they are asked to solve are seldom clearly defined by their clients” (p.67)

This situation will probably always remain the same and central to design practice. Here, Bruce acknowledges the fuzziness and ambiguity in design and particularly during the formative phases of design practice.

6. …And as such, realised the importance of problem-definition

Bruce references heuristics as an important element behind the formative phases of design practice and thinking, particularly when the problem is unclear. In his discussion he makes quite explicit the nature of problem-solution co evolution that is famously attributed to Kees Dorst and Nigel Cross’ research in design:

“To have defined the problem properly- even to have put a finger on the crucial issues- is not the same as having solved the problem itself. Nevertheless, it has gone some way toward a solution and, having formulated some sort of plan, the designer can offer estimates of time and cost.” (p. 70)

I believe much of the reason behind why many scholars don’t cite Bruce Archer more than they do is that it is freaking hard to get a hand on many of his texts. This article i have referenced from is one of his earlier texts and shows the early stages of his thinking towards design definitions and establishing design as a distinct discipline. His later articles evolve on these lines of thought, centering on why design is a practice distinct from the sciences and humanities.

Much like the other theorists of his time, Bruce predicted many things that continue today. However, difference of Bruce is that where other theorists identified one or two aspects common or fundamental to design that may apply to today’s practices, Bruce clearly identified and articulated a very close holistic depiction of design as it currently stands. You have to admit that this is fairly impressive, and it is the reason why i feel we should hold Bruce Archer at the forefront of our mind when we think of fundamental figures in design theory. For me, at least, he is front and centre.

**again this is taken from my thesis, please cite where necessary and blabla.

Tagged , , ,

Reality Bites

You guys are just going to make me go right ahead and say it, aren’t you?

Yes. Design thinking has hit a bit of a plateau. I’ll be the first to point out the elephant and admit that over the last year not much has happened. At least, not on the surface…

funny-sad-elephant-crying

The same hype slash propaganda promoting the idealistic process and practical methods is continuing its rounds which is why design thinking is starting to seem a little stale. Stale because we kind of know enough about what it is (process) and how to do it (methods). We get it. You have variations of the general process of: fuzzy front end, empathize, problem frame, ideate, prototype, and iterate. You already understand that its about people, its human centered and its collaborative and participatory. You know its about facilitation. You know that sticky notes should be your best friend and lego may be taken seriously by adults in business suits. And yet, we are still circulating this same information, with very minor tweaks and/or novel ideas (use blue sticky notes instead of yellow/ try bodystorming instead of brainstorming/add more emphasis on ethnography and anthropology) in an attempt to differentiate what is, and has been, essentially the same information packaged with slightly different bows.

What have we learned in the last year and a half?

Well, honestly? Not much. That is, nothing new in terms of empirical insights on the process+method behind design thinking. But there have been some papers published around cognition which echo earlier research. In updating the literature for my most recent review, I (and other researchers) struggled to find significant ‘breakthroughs’ and/or developments in pragmatic and non-theoretical design thinking research. When i mentioned in an earlier post that design thinking is still being discussed in academia, it is mainly in conferences and forums such as the PhD design list. Charles Burnette recently published some new (cognitively focused) interpretations that may be of interest to those of you seeking a more psychological stance on design thinking literature. For me, the most interesting development is that design thinking is really powering forward in public service and policy design areas. This may not sound particularly new, but the fact that it is gaining traction within governments as opposed to external agencies specialising in public or policy design consultancy, is a major improvement for design thinking.

So what can i add to this conversation? Well, in an attempt to contribute some new research on the topic i re-structured and revisited the section of literature that i had written on recent developments in design thinking. The history has largely remained the same, but what i rediscovered is that design thinking is now generally accepted as an approach than a description of a set of methods. This may seem obvious, but there was still debate around whether design thinking signified a set of methods or a mindset or both. What is also interesting is the opinion that design thinking shapes multidisciplinary design practice, and is also shaped by practice (See Gumienny et al. 2010, p.246). This adds more weight to the ideology that the characteristics of design thinking may be transitory and that the designerly approach evolves with new and emerging areas of human concern. Again, this situation brings up the same pesky questions: how do we define design thinking practice? what skills does a design thinker need? are there fundamental characteristics of design thinking, or will it forever change and evolve with social needs?

In response to the last question, i tried to distinguish a rough list of fundamental characteristics for design thinking that could classify as ‘staples’; elements that (up to now) have and should remain part of the description of design thinking despite advancements in research and transformations of approach. Im kind of going out on a limb here because these characteristics may change, or over time become obsolete. But i feel that despite the observable evolution of design thinking we can see recurring characteristics that underpin the approach. The benefit of trying to articulate foundational elements of design thinking creates a focus framework. This means that no matter what direction design thinking takes, it will always protect itself from disintegrating and/or deviating from a designerly approach. Because if the design approach evolves dramatically in the future, who can say it is any more design than it is science, business or art?  (Perhaps the real question is: do we want to preserve it as part of the practise of design, or let it adapt, evolve and transform over time?)

So think of this list as base ingredients in cooking- with just a few staple ingredients you can create many different dishes. I settled on these core characteristics because they were consistently discussed in both historical and current research on design thinking:

*Preference for the design of intangibles over tangibles

*Innovation (***this needs a special disclaimer: refer to end of this post)

*Holistic perspective

*Comfort in the uncertainty around “wicked” (i.e complex) problems

*Emphasis on multidisciplinary collaboration

*Human/user-centered focus

*Emphasis on user/human centered methods for data gathering/analysis (fundamentally ethnographic)

*Preference for creative visualisation; particularly manifested in methods for sensemaking/synthesis

*Positive/Optimistic attitude

*Reflective

*Open and iterative in both process and mindset (non linear)

Just to emphasise that these design traits are characteristics fundamental to design practice, i have placed them in my nifty pyramid so you can see that the characteristics we know now as design thinking are in fact fundamental to design practise as a whole:

pyramid-of-dt.redo

strat.dt.characteristics

i acknowledge that each level can potentially carry more/less characteristics, but i am focusing on the general nature of design work in each level

***”So whats up with innovation?” I hear you ask. Well, when i was reflecting on the backlash around design thinking that peaked in 2012, i realised that there was a major degree of difference between the expectations and reality of design thinking. The expectation industry had is that design thinking would radically innovate processes and outcomes. The reality is that top agencies and figureheads have struggled to consistently publish groundbreaking insights. But this is exactly where our attitude towards design thinking was, and is, wrong. Design thinking is innovative, but it is NOT radically innovative. That is, it is not innovative in the sense and way clients/organisations and perhaps even you would like it or believe it to be. Norman and Verganti pointed out this problem in their paper, Incremental and radical innovation: design research versus technology and meaning change:

Radical innovation is the center of attention of design studies, where it is taught in design schools, and
advocated by people discussing innovation and “design thinking.” It is what everyone wants, but in fact, successful radical innovation is surprisingly rare.

design thinking isnt a fast food process

To summarise the paper for you, design thinking is *not* i repeat NOT a process for radical innovation. It never was. Stop expecting it to be radically innovative in your business, outcome, service, relationships, cat, mother in law, and any other thing you might want to fix. Get. it. out. of. your. heads. Now.

Design thinking is rarely about immediate innovation. It is, and always was, incremental. This is the fundamental underlying issue beneath all of those negative articles on design thinking you read about in 2012 and sometimes still today. Our expectations on design thinking need to shift (clients especially), and our attention  needs to move to a space where we understand that this process is not one that can create overnight miracles. It is not radical. Its methods may sometimes be rapid, but thats about as fast as its going to get. Good design thinking takes time and any innovation as a result of it will be incremental due to the nature of human centered iteration and improvement that is embedded in the mindset and process.

so would you like fries with that?

AGIDEAS Research Conference 2013

One of the (rare) perks of doing a PhD is getting free passes to research related events or conferences. Swinburne sponsored and hosted the AGIDEAS research conference this year held at ACMI in Melbourne. Lucky for us students, they had a few passes to give away.

I didn’t intend to blog about the day so i did not take notes/images of the talks and apologise for the somewhat vague recollections. But on reflection of the event, i realised there were a few debates and key ideas that surfaced which i felt interesting to share.

To be perfectly honest, a lot of the research echoed many insights already established in the design field. Now im not implying that the research was in any way unoriginal, but, even though it was an original contribution to the particular discourse outside of design (say, business or psychology that has not published much research focused on design practice), the conclusions were almost identical to what designers have been publishing for decades. It made me wonder how much literature should be read external to ones research field, if a topic is fundamental to a field outside of ones own. This is particularly problematic for new industries recently discovering ‘design thinking’.

The theme for the event was titled Design for Business. Many speakers diverged a little off topic and majority of the talks focused on branding and marketing. However, there were three dominant discussions/debates that ran through the day:

1. Emotion

There were a few speakers that spoke for and against branding and designing for emotion. Prof. Jenni Romaniuk argued that she did not believe branding should involve or evoke emotion in consumers as people have a hard time as it is relating to one another let alone have an emotional connection to a brand. She spoke quite adamantly about her disinterest in design for emotion arguing it adds a level of stress in an already confusing marketplace. Emily Wright presented an interesting paper on packaging design that discussed trying out the new or tried and true. She was sympathetic to emotional design and her research implied that evoking nostalgia through package design can influence buying behaviour. Dr Dan Formosa discussed the use of personas in design and somewhat contradicted himself by first stating he did not like the idea of constructing one persona to depict an entire demographic, yet, he preferred basing personas on ‘real’ friends and individuals he has encountered. I (and i think i speak for most designers) favor designing with or for emotion as design is fundamentally human-centered and empathetic to the user/consumer.

2. Design Thinking

This probably seems like a ‘well duh’ topic to mention but i was actually fairly surprised that academics were still (seriously) referencing design thinking despite all of the marketing bull-kak and backlash it has received over the last year and a half. Usually academics run from anything that sniffs like a fad, so for multiple presenters to acknowledge design thinking as a serious and legitimate phenomenon assures that it is growing out of the fad phase. In fact there was a presentation titled: “Design thinking to grow the market: Developing products that address industry and consumer need,” by Dr Elaine Saunders, David Jenkinson and Jessica Taft.

3. Marketing Vs Design (particularly sustainable design)

Woooweee was this a hot topic. It seems the feud between marketers and designers has not lost its fire. Dr Robert Crocker presented an interesting lecture on ethicalization and greenwashing, focusing on sustainability and indirectly blaming consumerism and marketing for fuelling unsustainable desires. Upon finishing, Prof. Jenni Romaniuk challenged Dr.Crockers blame ideas on marketing, vehemently arguing that marketers just answer to the needs of consumers which they dictate and demand. Things got heated pretty quickly, with Dr. Crocker sharply replying that he completely disagreed with Jenni’s proposal and found marketing to be a fundamentally unsustainable practice. A few more jabs were thrown from both speakers before our MC, Dr.Gjoko Muratovski, quickly stepped in to break the fight with a joke: [that] “sideline tickets will be on sale after the conference,” and suggested both academics continue their debate over wine (because that would make everything more civil!). Suffice to say, the audience were on the edge of their seats  and many labeled it the highlight of the conference.

Overall, the day was an interesting account on current research surrounding branding in design and how branding and marketing can influence and affect business and consumer behaviour. Would love to know if anyone else attended the event and could share their thoughts on the day- or even just on these topics.

Why design needs a critical reality check

I havent had much time to think about blogging lately, especially since i have burrowed into a methodological ditch for the past few months. I wasnt sure if this post would be practical for professionals, but it will be of interest to researchers or maybe even educators in the design field. For my thesis I have to dedicate a large portion of writing towards my epistemological and methodological position- that is, what theoretical justification of knowledge i choose to take which kind of dictates the path towards obtaining data. Its more or less a lense or theory which you believe adequately justifies truth and knowledge. Wikipedia probably does a better job at explaining it than i have, but this handy Euler diagram sums it up:

different epist’s have differing beliefs on what is true which = knowledge

I spent months torturing myself over what episte i was going to take. Despite my supervisor claiming its not really a big deal, i felt that choosing the right theory of knowledge was imperative, especially for the credibility of my data. The importance of choosing the right episte became apparent to me more so when i realised that i was entering unknown territories in research- especially design research- because the kind of topic i am undertaking is not conventional.

A little bit about research in design…

Design research has *generally* borrowed methodologies from the social sciences. Borrowing a methodology from another field comes with epistemological positions that underpin its pathway. A PhD colleague, Luke Feast, published a paper with Gavin Melles on common epistemological positions in doctoral design research. Four main positions were highlighted in this paper and placed in order from most subjective to least. They are: subjectivism, constructivism (i will add here pragmatism) and objectivism/positivism. The prevailing episte that has been most widely supported by the big guns in design (Cross, Schon) is constructivism and currently dominates doctoral design research (Feast & Melles 2010, p. 3)

The kind of epistemology you choose to guide your research largely depends on the question asked. Different fields of research assume common epistemological and methodological procedures due to the nature of the work. For example, in the field of anthropology where majority of research questions surround cultural investigations on semiotics and constructions of meaning, a constructivist or even subjectivist approach is assumed and appropriate. In the field of psychology and behavioural research, questions seek quantitative data and often follow a more scientific (positivist) approach. Thus, scientific research assumes a positivist position and can also be termed ‘reductionist’. You will have to excuse my rather crude explanations- there are indeed more epistemological ‘-isms’ used in each field of research but i am just covering the most common.

But most of these ‘isms’ dont quite fit…

I am not claiming to be an expert on the topic of doctoral research in design, but ive read enough about design research to form an opinion that makes me believe design research hasn’t found its own episte yet- especially for higher orders of design. To me, borrowing epistemologies from other fields is not allowing for the scope of complexity that is required in this field. The slippers dont quite fit. As a relatively new industry, design research has been stuck in an awkward teen phase- trying out different epistemological trends to see what works.

In the process of finding the right shoe, the design industry has evolved (and technically returned to) a new scope of practice- thats is the (re)focus on design thinking in highly complex issues such as systemic design and social innovation. This has thrown up all of our most common methodological approaches previously used in design research.  I need to now highlight why, in context of our new design sphere, the epistemological positions we have been using thus far are falling short.

So what epistemology fits with this new scale of design? On the one hand, this area of design deals with social constructions of meaning and culture, with the artefacts and results that are produced to improve on what society values. On the other, it interacts with complex systems that depend on ‘objective’ (technological and environmental) forces that operate independently from what we construct of it. It’s not enough to research design from a purely subjectivist lens; one that favors intrepretations on human constructions of meaning and intent. Its not enough to research design from a purely objective lens; one that favors a quantifiable view of social process and ignores cultural meaning and values. Design largely is the combination of  both these extremes so it makes sense that to perform adequate research in design- especially complex design practice- that we find a middle ground for our theoretical stance, one that acknowledges the importance of both socially constructed meaning and external forces. This middle ground can be found from using a critical realist perspective.

What is Critical Realism?

This is where i get into the nitty gritties of the most commonly used epist’s in design research and compare these with a critical realist approach. Below is a table taken from Luke & Melles paper but originally found in Michael Crotty’s book, The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. The following table is a nice concise outline of the main epistemologies in design research, along with the related methodology and methods of investigation.

Now I’ve edited this table to insert critical realism:

I should note that debates over whether critical realism is an epistemological or an ontological theory are still performed today. The general consensus is that it is an ontological theory, but ive placed it under epistemology for simplicity. The theoretical perspectives listed here for critical realism are also epistemologies but ive placed the information in this way to show that critical realism is a combination of pragmatic and realist theories.

WARNING!!!

The following contains jargon. If you feel you dont need to brush up on the details behind critical realism (though i highly recommend it, even just for fun. Yes, i said fun) you can safely scroll down to the more practical explanation of the theory.

Ready?

Critical Realism was first proposed by Roy Bhaskar in the 1970’s as an alternative theory aimed to bridge perspectives from the arts and sciences. I dont really recommend you read Bhaskar, as his texts are infamous for being convoluted to the point where you think he himself doesnt quite understand what he is saying. So thankfully a whole group of smart academics such as Sayer, Danermark, Eckstrom and Dickens published a range of books and papers clarifying and expanding on the theory, saving us mortals from Bhaskar’s intense philosophies.

The interpretations from our saviours differ a little. Some prefer to take a more subjective interpretation whereas others prefer a more positivist approach. Some described CR as an epistemology, where as most acknowledge it as an ontological theory (a theory on what can be said to ‘exist’ rather than justification of knowledge). Sayer is perhaps the leading contemporary writer on critical realism, with Dickens a key theorist in context of eco and sustainable practice. Both of these writers have outlined the key elements behind critical realism. Below is a comparison of their accounts:

Dickens on “The 4 Key Elements of Critical Realism”

1. Knowledge is a product of society, but knowledge is not only a product of society. It can refer to real processes and mechanisms in the world.

2. Science is about establishing the causes underlying phenomena of interest. Real, relatively enduring structures and causal mechanisms in the physical, biological and social worlds underlie what we observe and experience. They do so in combination with one another and often in combination with contingent circumstance. ‘Closed systems’ are created artificially to develop understandings of causal mechanisms, but these are rare in society and nature.

3. The world is envisaged as heirarchically stratified. At the most general level are physical mechanisms (e.g. Gravity). At ‘higher’ level are chemical structures and mechanisms. Higher still are biological mechanisms (e.g those generating an organisms growth). Finaly, there are physchological and social mechanisms. Mechanisms at each level of reality are rooted in- but not reducible to- those operating at lower levels.

4. The nature of these structures and mechanisms is subject to constant critique and scientific development. This critique and development can also stem from practical, everyday experience (Dickens 2003, p. 20)

Dickens’s account on critical realism is much easier to digest, but Sayer dives a little deeper into the specifics behind the theory:

Sayer’s 8 key assumptions of CR:

1.The world exists independently of our knowledge of it.

2. Our knowledge of the world is fallible and theory-laden. Concepts of truth and falsity fail to provide a coherent view of the relationship between knowledge and its object. Nevertheless knowledge is not immune to empirical check and its effectiveness in informing and explaining successful material practice is not mere accident.

3. Knowledge develops neither wholly continuously, as the steady accumulation of facts within a stable conceptual framework, nor discontinuously, through simultaneous and universal changes in concepts.

4. There is necessity in theworld; objects—whether natural or social— necessarily have particular powers or ways of acting and particular susceptibilities.

5. The world is differentiated and stratified, consisting not only of events, but objects, including structures, which have powers and liabilities capable of generating events. These structures may be present even where, as in the social world and much of the natural world, they do not generate regular patterns of events.

6. Social phenomena such as actions, texts and institutions are concept dependent.We not only have to explain their production and material effects but to understand, read or interpret what they mean. Although they have to be interpreted by starting from the researcher’s own frames of meaning, by and large they exist regardless of researchers’ interpretation of them. A qualified version of 1 therefore applies to the social world. In view of 4–6, the methods of social science and natural science have both differences and similarities.

7. Science or the production of any kind of knowledge is a social practice. For better or worse (not just worse) the conditions and social relations of the production of knowledge influence its content. Knowledge is also largely—though not exclusively— linguistic, and the nature of language and the way we communi- cate are not incidental to what is known and communicated. Awareness of these relationships is vital in evaluating knowledge.

8. Social science must be critical of its object. In order to be able to explain and understand social phenomena we have to evaluate them critically (Sayer 1992, p.5)

So as you can see, critical realism acknowledges that there is both an external reality where natural processes operate (nature), but that also this reality can include social processes that operate independently of our observation and interpretation of them. The critical realist perspective still lies in constructivist reasoning (as oppose to scientific experimentation/testing), but unlike most subjective epistemologies that deny an external ‘truth’ , critical realism understands that a mind independent reality exists. I was going to briefly get into descriptions of how critical realism operates but felt that researchers can familiarise themselves with the texts and that practitioners may not need to know the nitty gritty philosophical descriptions for practice.  This brings me to the next point: how critical realism can be used in practice.

 “Most sciences have in the past tended to develop an understanding of physical, chemical, and other mechanisms in isolation. They have done this through creating artifically ‘closed systems’ as a means of understanding the basic mechanisms of the physical and social world.”  (Dickens 2003, p.100)

Enough with the blah blah, get to the point!

What critical realism can teach practitioners is to understand when a system is closed and tame or open and complex (wicked).  Essentially most complex designs deal with ‘open’ social systems that are forever in a state of ‘flux’. Most designers working in this area will already know that this is the case, however, many struggle to formulate flexible and adaptable solutions. In order to do this, research and analysis needs to unify information from both specific social values as well as wider objective forces. Easier said than done, right? But critical realism can offer a guiding methodology on how to investigate and analyse complex data to design better informed solutions. It opens the scope of research and provides a methodology that can guide practitioners through the messy process of sense-making, particularly when it needs to harmoniously unify data on specific social needs and external impacts.

“In practice, then, open system predictive methods are neither completely non explanatory nor fully explanatory but a compromise usually taking the form of a model in which some of the main processes are summarily represented by variables. These empirical models are fitted to existing data and extrapolated forward. They involve curve fitting but the curves are fitted to relationships which might be interpereted as causal; they do not attempt to model actual processes closely.” (Sayer 2010, p. 90)

Critical realism can form generalisations of external cause and effects, usually through triangulation of data. But it does not attempt to scientifically ‘prove’ that data as a direct representation. At best we can create descriptions that satisfy general truths:

“Another appraoch to concrete research but one which cannot easily be represented in our diagram is the method of ‘ideal types’. Given the complexity of the world, it is argued that any research must be selective and that consequently researchers specify objects in terms of ideal types which isolate phenomena according to their interests and values” (Sayer 2010, p. 159)

Sound familiar? That is because it echo’s Simon’s theory of ‘satisficing’ in the face of complex systems that are constantly evolving.

Critical realism is fundamentally about dealing with and making sense of complex, evolving problems. It is especially  useful when applied in sustainable practice. If we are going to march forward in the pursuit of a sustainable future, we CANNOT distinguish ourselves or our ‘being’ in this world as completely separate from the ‘other’ (the environment). I know this sounds a bit heideggarian, and it is, but this general attitude has largely dominated the last century. I know this also sounds like a grand generalisation, but how many of you consciously consider how you are connected to your environment? or even your wider social community? Didnt think so.

…Cue environmental rant

Our earth has for too long been a commodity. We dont consider ourselves as an extension of our natural environment and many of us barely consider the environment in connection with our daily actions.  Many might question what exactly is ‘natural’, but i find in the face of climate change and increasing social and cultural unrest, these philosophical questions deviate from action so i am going to leave the dirty questions on hermeneutics and ontology to the philosophers. The basic fact is, we have become completely disconnected from our ecosystem- both social and environmental. If individuals are not going to consider this fact and designers consider themselves the key to social change, then designers must start approaching problems with a connected mindset that acknowledges our intimate relationship with our social and natural environments.

In context of the above, you can see why a critical realist perspective in design is so important. For research like my own where we begin to look back to natural structures and apply these learnings to design more sustainable social systems, a theory that acknowledges both the social and natural realities is fundamental. This perspective is equally important in practice, as more designers attempt to bridge social and environmental problems. No longer should the social and the scientific be at war and our sense of self be separate from our external reality, as critical realism is paving the way towards unification through transdisciplinary research.

Reference list for nerds:

Crotty, 1998, The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process

Feast & Melles, 2010, Epistemological Positions in Design Research: a brief review of the literature

Dickens, P 2003,  Society and Nature

Sayer, A 2010, Method in Social Science

Journal of Critical Realism

Website for critical realism, containing many papers and articles

Biomimicry (design) thinking?

If some of you follow me on Twitter, you would already know that i recently posted a question to my tweeps asking what they would prefer to see more of on my blog. The overall response favored an academic discussion; posting papers and discussing in context of practice. Missing out by a whisker was the second most popular response, which was more lolcats and memes.

Realising i haven’t posted anything related to sustainable practice in a while (yes its not going to go away) i thought i should hunt around for something that was new, interesting and could somehow be taken away by you folk and applied (even if just ideologically) into practice. So after stalking a recent discussion over Twitter amongst a few tweeps poking at the concept of biomimicry, i knew this topic would be perfect material for my next post.

I should note that this paper might seem a bit abstract. Its not about providing a new tool or method you can directly apply; its more about offering an exciting new way of approaching problems which can create more adaptive and flexible solutions.

Bionics vs. Biomimicry: from control of nature to sustainable participation in nature

D. C. Wahl. Centre for the Study of Natural Design, University of Dundee, UK Design and Nature III: Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering, Volume: 87, Publisher: WIT Press, Pages: 289-298

To sum it all up in once sentence/quote: ” the intentionality behind science and design needs to shift from aiming to increase prediction, control and manipulation of  nature as a resource, to a transdisciplinary cooperation in the process of learning how to participate appropriately and sustainably in Nature”

Main points: diversity good, linear bad. Holistic good, collaboration good. Adaptation good, control bad. 

This article places a LOT of emphasis on holistic practice and the responsibility design has in transforming current practice that aims to control our nature, into one that learns from it and works with nature.

Introduction:

” The root cause of the utter unsustainability of modern civilization lies in the dualistic separation of nature and culture. It is in nature, that all peoples and all species unite into a community of life.”

I think most of us (and by us i mean westernised individuals) forget that we are culturally separated from nature. With exception of tribal communities, design is largely to blame for our unsustainable, industrial life. We view nature  as something detached from ourselves; an ongoing process independent and unaffected from our actions.

“The aim of science is shifting towards informing appropriate participation in natural process, rather than the enabling of new technologies of prediction, manipulation and control. The transition towards sustainability will require a new approach to design and technology that is based on a participatory and holistic worldview informed by science, ethics and the transdisciplinary integration of multiple perspectives. It is a biophysical and ecological fact that culture is never  truly separate from nature.”

This is where we start to realise that much of the mindset that is needed for a sustainable future is very similar to that which is inherent in design thinking (this includes service/human centered design). It is now possible that we can take lessons from biomimicry and apply our learnings into the design process.

Section 2: Learning from Nature as model, measure and mentor:

During the methods movement (1960s-1970s) McHarg, Todd and Mclarney, founders of The New Alchemy Institute, were first to introduce research on biomimicry- taking design lessons from natures process. John Todd provides a quote:

“The Earth’s ecologies are embedded with a set of instructions that we urgently need to decode and employ in the design of human systems”

The question here is: we know we can directly translate lessons from nature and apply these into the design process for technological outcomes (devices, artifacts and engineering), but how do we translate natures process for the design of intangible human (and service) systems? This answer requires more research but the information can be invaluable. The following includes guidelines on how to start.

Section 2.1. Bionics: A prediction and control approach to learning from nature:

During the same period when biomimicry was announced, bionics was introduced by US Air Force engineer Major J.E. Steele (who also coined the term). German Zoologist Werner Nachtigall took over the trend and stated in the 70s that bionics is, “the process of “learning from nature as an inspiration for independent technical design”. He developed the principles of bionic design:

Principles of Bionic Design (plus commentary!)

1. Integrated instead of additive construction

(ideal. not always easy to do, but easy to forget. Service design, meta design and co-design can offer strategies and tools to utilise what we have to create integrated solutions than creating a result that requires new needs or materials. This approach is crucial for any designer. Examples of integrated solutions can be found here )

2. Optimisation of the whole, rather than maximisation of individual elements

(Again, in service design/design thinking much emphasis is placed on the whole than tuning into details. This is about creating a harmonious and sustainable ecosystem. Small detailed changes often yield the most successful (and feasible) outcome, but great decisions on details that have negative effect on the whole service/company/environment need to be optimised if possible.)

3. Multifunctionality instead of monofunctionality

4. Fine-tuning adapted to particular environments

(may seem a bit of a contradiction of point 3, however using statement from point 2, if you have to diverge and ‘tune in’ to a particular aspect of a project, adapt this to the environment it is situated in. This ensures that despite focusing on one area and not ‘the whole’ -as it sometimes may not be feasible- try to ensure the detail is adaptive to the surrounding environment)

5. Energy saving instead of energy squandering

(more of a product design thing. obvious nonetheless)

6. Direct and indirect use of solar energy

(as above)

7. Temporal limitation instead of unnecessary durability

(this again relates to product design but can also relate to service/intangible products. Create solutions that are not fixed (unnecessary durability) or hard to ‘recycle’, but are able to be re-used or re-shaped for new solutions that evolve with environment- both nature and culture)

8. Total recycling instead of waste accumulation

(obvious)

9. Networks instead of linearity

(socially, this can be translated as ‘collaborative networks’.)

10. Development through the process of trial and error

(iteration is much of the ethos behind design thinking)

Section 2.2 Biomimicry: ecologically informed design for sustainability

“During the 1970s, research at the ‘New Alchemy Institute’ began to explore how ecology, biology, and a bio-cybernetic systems approach, could inform more sustainable solutions to meeting fundamental human needs.” And as a result, they came up with this: (with, you guessed it- commentary!!)

The Precepts of Biological Design:

1. The living world is a matrix for all design

(The environment is much more evolved than we are. It surprises me to this day that most design outcomes and designers do not consult the fabric which gives us life)

2. Design should follow, not oppose the law of life

(Similar sentiment to point 2 of bionic principles)

3. Biological equity must determine design

4. Design must reflect bioregionality

(design outcomes need to be adaptive to the unique environment it lives within. This can be tangible (nature) or intangible (culture). Design outcomes whether service, policy or product, must reflect+integrate local environments and communities for sustainable development and evolution)

5. Projects must be based on renewable energy sources

(same as point 5 under bionic principles)

6. Design should be sustainable through the integration of living systems

(again, reflects same sentiment as point 4. Designing outcomes that do not incorporate a living system, whether animal, plant or people will persist with the dependancy on unnatural and unsustainable (artificial) artefacts)

7. Design should be co-evolutionary with the natural world

(same as above)

8. Building and design should help heal the planet

(makes me think of this)

9. Design should follow a sacred ecology

10. Everyone is a designer!

(this was probably a sneaky way to imply that everyone is responsible for their actions)

At this point in the whole biology and nature inspired history comes Janine Benyus, founder of the Biomimicry Institute and author of Biomimicry –Innovation Inspired by Nature. She, like her predecessors in this field, came up with her own set of principles:

The Biomimcry Approach:

1. Nature as model. Biomimicry is a new science that studies nature’s models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems.

2. Nature as a measure. Biomimicry uses an ecological standard to judge the “rightness” of our innovations. After 3.8 billon years of evolution, nature has learned: What works. What is appropriate. What lasts.

3. Nature as a mentor. Biomimicry is a new way of viewing and valuing nature. It introduces an era based not on what we can extract from the natural world, but on what we can learn from it.

It is evident that this paper is highlighting the theory and need for biomimicry but with vague directions on how to perform it. Interestingly enough, the author goes to state that THE wicked problem of the 21st century IS sustainability and that all aspects of design: from policy to ecosystems, require transdisciplinary teams with the designer as instigator and facilitator in this process.

The author shifts into the theory of complex systems, quoting german systems psychologist Dietrich Dörner. Dörner investigated ways trans+multi disciplinary teams interact in the process of complex, unpredictable and interrelated problems. This theory should be fundamental for design thinking. So for all of you designers out there wanting to work in the wicked 4.0 sphere (services, policy, systems, sustainability, urban planning, etc) you need to take note and staple the following to your forehead:

Common Mistakes in Dealing with Complex Systems:

1. Inadequate definition of goals (vision)

(problem framing is key)

2. Lack of a joined-up systems analysis

(not understanding the parts which make up and affect the whole)

3. The creation of irreversible emphasis

(dead end solutions must be avoided)

4. Lack of attention to side effects

(what effect will your decision/solution have on the whole ecosystem?)

5. The tendency to over-steer or over-react

(go in with an ‘equal’ not ‘ego’ mentality towards participants during co-creation)

6. The tendency to act in an authoritarian (controlling) way

(as above)

“Adaptive complex dynamic networks are nature’s way of responding effectively to change. Sustainable design that reintegrates culture and nature has to emulate nature’s way of dealing with unpredictability, fundamental interconnectedness and dynamic transformation”

This is exactly what everyone’s talking about at the moment in sustainable design. But i get the feeling that amongst this discussion we are not quite sure how to create solutions that live up to this philosophy. How can we go wrong if we design solutions that are a natural extension from nature? Im sure this all sounds incredibly hippy but I dont mean designing outcomes covered in flowers and leaves-this is about unlocking new processes and growth.

Conclusion:

“Effectively, or from within a more holistic and eco-literate perspective that regards culture as a co-dependent participant in natural process. Such changes in intention are changes in metadesign that affect all human activity. Changing the intentions behind design –changing mindset – is design at the paradigm level and life style level

The case im trying to make here is that observation and analysis of natures process which can be synthesised into design practice might be the most efficient way to create sustainable solutions that are as painless as possible. Biomimicry offers an avenue of research and design that tackles sustainability in the most pragmatic way possible. It holds clues that might make our sustainable journey much easier- we just have to find them.

A Brief History of Design Thinking: How Design Thinking Came to ‘Be’

This is where things get a bit hazy. Design Thinking and all that it stands for today did not directly come out of the history I outlined earlier- it simply proves that design thinking has a history. Design thinking was a realisation through the evolution of different (collaborative) design process methods that were developed to improve and extend design to other areas of practice.

From where we left off…

What happened from the mid 1980’s to date was a race to discover new methods for improving business, service and design. Each methodology can be traced through history and analysed independently should you wish to interpret historical readings in context of the method under investigation. I will highlight an example of what I mean as we move along.

The purpose of analysing this period was to understand the evolution of major design process methods and to discover from this evolution the moment when design thinking was realised as a new approach and a way of thinking that underlined all other methods before it. It must be noted that through this development there was no clear linear progression of methodologies that arose, as many were developed at the same time in different faculties and industries. I have taken through much reading a very generalised approach at attempting to create a chronological understanding of the evolution of major design process trends. The purpose of doing this is to objectively clarify the history and evolution of design thinking which has been muddy and conflicting to date.

And it all started with….Participatory Design

In the early days, participatory methodology was seen most commonly in urban planning until recent developments in design gave this method its name. As i stated earlier, one could very easily trace the history and development of participatory design in and of itself- independent from design thinking. For example; If you want to get nit picky about history, participatory design can be traced all the way back to Plato’s Republic.

Plato was known to seek advice from his people

Grass roots democracy was once the heart of participatory methodology and is an established method used for centuries for the development of a harmonious society. But i am here to discuss how this and other methods (each with their own unique history) have come together to form the evolution of design thinking.

Back to the Future

Fast forward from Plato to the 1960s. During the design methods movement, participatory design was gaining momentum through research. Dubbed the Scandinavian approach, participatory design was about integrating end-users into the development (prototyping) phase of projects. Technological developments during the end of this decade saw participatory design shift from a social method to a technological one. Prior to the adoption of PD in technology, systems design was the go-to for engineers prototyping within an iterative framework.

The timeline of Participatory Design

As PD progressed into the 1980s, it became synonymous with the emerging field of interaction design. Many of the techniques used in PD were borrowed from science, such as usability testing. Others included mock-ups, prototyping and even role playing.

The Pitfalls of Participatory Design

One of the main disadvantages of participatory design is its negligence towards user experience and stakeholder input. Usability was king, but emotional response to gadgetry was largely ignored. In many instances user testing was abandoned, when users decisions conflicted with those of the stakeholders and the designers.

In response to this end-user dilemma, discussions surrounding co-design (co-operative design) or collaborative design began to take place. This alternative method aimed to transform passive users into co-operative designers.

User-Centered Design

The most significant contribution to the transformation of user development in design was introduced by design theorist Donald Norman. Donald re-defined participatory design into what he coined as user-centered design. User testing became less about usability and more about a users interests and needs. Norman favoured user-control and humanised participatory and system design by “making things visible”. This was to ensure users could discover errors and have control over resolving them.

Donald Norman aka The Godfather of User-Centered Design

Another significant shift in ideology from participatory to user-centered design was the placement of user at the center of the development process. It highlighted the benefits of understanding user experience over user testing. Owing some of its methodology to behavioural sciences, user-centered design emphasised experience over efficiency and adopted a more humanistic approach with the involvement of the user throughout the development of a product or system.

The differences between PD and UCD

User-centered design grew out of speculations towards elevating users from guinea-pigs to co-developers of systems during the participatory trend. This new methodology incidentally spread into broader areas of industry and practice.

Service Design

On the design methodology timeline, service design broke out into the design discipline as a new practice a few years after the turn of the millennium. We can see now that developments through participatory design to user-centered design and the evolution of customer experiences has shaped much of the methodology behind service design. Lucy Kimbell best sums up the development of service design as:

‘[it] Draws on several traditions including product, environment, experience and interaction design” (Kimbell 2009, p. 250).

Kimbell and a few other scholars discuss a new perspective rising in business; from a closed value chain (i.e: we punched out a product we tested on some monkeys and know it works so we can forget about it) to understanding how and what the user **does** with a product (or service); including their journey and experience. This perspective is another  step forward in the evolution of design methodology, for rather than thinking about end user experience of a product or service (user-centered design) attention has shifted to understanding the use, interaction and journey of that product/service after it has left the hands of the provider.

So now we find ourselves labelling all products and systems as one service unit. Kimbell argues that the distinction between a service and product becomes irrelevant, for everything is a type of service that plays a role in ‘value creation’ (Kimbell 2010, p.3). Furthermore, service design extended the definition of the ‘user’ to include all stakeholders and individuals affected or interacting with the service system.

It was with this new approach to product/service systems that the idea of a holistic mindset was made evident. And the holistic mindset behind service design owed much of its development to Ezio Manzini through his research in service marketing and meta-design. Additionally, many of the methods used in service design today have been borrowed and adapted from anthropology and marketing.

Most importantly, it is the holistic perspective of service design that distinguishes itself from all previous design methodologies. Rather than focusing on the ‘end user’ (the customer: marketing/user centered and participatory design), service design seeks to collaborate with all users of a service; building relationships between stakeholders to open up communication for the exchange and development of value and knowledge.

Human-Centered Design

Since the early 1990s, human-centered design and user-centered design were often interchangeable terms regarding the integration of end users within a design process. Like many other design methodologies, human-centered design first began within technological and product system industries and was growing under human centered interaction (a method that is still in use). Human-centered design only started to evolve around the late 1990s, when the development of methods described above shifted from a techno-driven focus to a humanised one.

It was also at this point that we found ourselves with a design methodology that was manifested as more of a mindset than a physical set of tools. William B. Rouse discusses the ideology of the mindest behind HCD in his book, Design for Success: A Human-Centered Approach to Designing Successful Products and Systems. His definition of HCD is philosophical:

“Roles of humans in complex systems, enhancing human abilities, aid to overcome human
limitations and foster user acceptance” (Rouse, 1991 pp.6-123).

Despite contextualising his defintiion within the field of systems and product engineering, Rouse introduces a broader perspective of the ‘user’- one that is closely related to service design but situated in a broader, more socially conscious arena. In its final (and current) phase of evolution, HCD is seen to hold potential for resolving wider societal issues.

HCD is a mix of meta design and service design but closely related to anthropology. It is used more generally in social development than service development.

The broad holistic perspective introduced in service design allowed for human-centered design to redefine its meaning. Coupled with significant social and environmental disasters, it was appropriate after the turn of the millenium that HCD transformed from a method to a mindset, aiming to humanize the design process and empathize with stakeholders. The mindset approach of human centered design re-introduced design thinking, but this time as a mindset used a method for interpreting wicked problems.

Outer circle (blue) signifies the shifts in design theory along the timeline. The inner circle (pink) signifies the methodological shifts in design practice over time

It is interesting to note that the shifts in design theory and practice that have occured since the methods movement in the 1960s have mirrored one another. Design-as-science trend of the 60s and 70s sit opposite and reflect the methodical inquiry into process methods of the 1990s. Similarly, cognitive reflections in design theory during the 1980s reflect (and sit opposite) the mindset movement we are moving through now. Though this may not have been the best way to depict the timeline of design theory and thinking (infodesign nerds get off my back), I chose a circle to deliberately highlight these reflections and the very fact that we have almost come full circle. If this pattern is correct, we should find ourselves moving back into a scientification (did i make that word up?) of design, and it seems to me that we are already beginning to shift into it; as developments in neuroscience turn attention to design thinking for study.

To highlight my prediction on the next phase in design, here is a Stanford video on the neuroscience of design thinking. Enjoy.

A Brief History of Design Thinking: The Theory [P2]

The Second Wave (1980s-1990s)

After its initial breakthrough on the academia scene, design theory shifted into a somewhat soul searching phase that saw many scholars reflecting on the cognitive aspects of design; what it means to be creative, how much relies on intuition and how personal is the process.

Design theorists that emerged during this period remain household names today. This is potentially due to the fact that design theory has not undergone much of a revolution since this reflective phase. In fact, we (academics and practitioners) are currently in the midst of shaping the early stages of a new wave of design as we speak. More will be explained in a separate post at a later date. For now, we continue our academic journey through the theoretical landmarks that were developed during the mid 1980’s to the mid 1990’s.

Nigel Cross: The instinctive one

Nigel Cross

Nigel’s work surrounds the investigation of intuition in design- but not just IN design, UNIQUE to design. Nigel believed that the design process was special due to tacit knowledge and instinctive process, arguing that design can stand alone as a craft independent from other disciplines- especially science.

We have come to realize that we do not have to turn design into an
imitation of science, nor do we have to treat design as a mysterious,
ineffable art. We recognize that design has its own distinct intellectual
culture; its own designerly ‘things to know, ways of knowing them, and
ways of finding out about them’ (Cross 1999, p. 7)

Yup. We designers are a unique breed. We have our own way of knowing, sensing and… thinking. Thinking? Thinking! OH SNAP! What Nigel’s describing here is design thinking!

Nigel favoured the designer in the design process so much that he described the designer as the core of the process. The privileged mind of the designer was central to the process and relied heavily on his or her intuition.

Business, engineering and all other non design folk: you can stop rolling your eyes. Whether it be called intuition, instinct or design thinking, this issue of what makes a designer a ***DeSigNeR*** compared to mortals is still a hot topic of debate. But it might cool your blood to know that Nigel also realised that the ‘creative leap’; the spontaneous burst of creativity scholars previously defined as central to the design process, was not so elusive after all.

anyone can build a bridge

It appeared through Nigel’s investigations that creativity (design thinking) was more about building ‘creative bridges’ than it was about being touched by the inspirational light from the design Gods.  Creative bridges was more about analogical thinking and abductive leaps. Where Papanek described bisociation as a process tool to inspire creative ideas, Nigel thought that this was a natural thought process unique to a designer.

Richard Buchanan: He who popularised “wicked problems”

Richard Buchanan

Pretty much anyone who is familiar with design or better yet design theory would’ve heard of the term ‘wicked problems’ being abused thrown around. Buchanan’s widely influential paper published in 1992 titled, Wicked Problems in Design Thinking, busted out ‘wicked’ and ‘design thinking’ into mainstream design culture. Now is time to spare a thought for poor ol Rittel and Webber who not only coined the term ‘wicked’ but also (in their own way) described design thinking. But it so happens Buchanan’s paper was in the right place at the right time to make the right impact. However, Buchanan like most of his peers during this period rejected the notion of design as a science. He describes design thinking as a ‘liberal art’ reflecting contemporary culture and used by professionals as ‘insight’ into resolving (Rittel’s) wicked problems.

Im going to have to remind you readers that this period was a pretty self indulgent time for designers and design theorists. The following quote might make you gag/be filled with pride depending on your stance or experience on the matter:

[design thinking is] Mastered by a few people who practice the discipline with distinctive insight and sometimes advance it to new areas of innovative application (Buchanan 1998, p. 8).

But perhaps one of the main reasons why this paper was so influential is it explicitly connects design thinking to innovation. For Buchanan, this was largely attributed to the fact that he realised design thinking is a multidisciplinary mindset and discovered four primary disciplines where it could be found- regardless of whether design is directly involved or not:

1. Symbolic and visual communication

2. The design of material objects

3. Activities and organized services

4. The design of complex systems or environments for living, working, playing and learning

(Buchanan 1998, p. 9)

Buchanan predicted much about the nature of design thinking today, however one idea has fallen short of hitting the big time and that is the collaboration between research and practice. Buchanan’s idea of innovation was not exclusively multidisciplinary in practice, but multidisciplinary across practice and research. I know I harp on about this a lot, but this is one area where design practice falls short and the collaboration between design industries and research is only vaguely implemented in very specific areas of industrial development. Anyhow, to reflect on Buchanan’s characteristics in context of design today we could interpet the previous points as follows:

1. graphic design

2. product design

3. service design

4. policy/urban planning/ design

Furthermore, if you have heard about the design industry described as stages/phases/levels/etc, this would have to be the source of such interpretations which is helping us define new heights in design practice and research.

Donald Schön: Caught in his own reflection 

Donald Schon

This man is a favorite amongst design researchers. Schön was the ultimate of thinkers. He reflected so much about the process of design its any wonder he didnt get caught in an existentialist thought loop. But alas, he emerged with his thoughts in a book titled, The Reflective Practitioner.

Schön aggressively refuted the idea that design needs to ground itself in science to be taken seriously. Like his peers, he made an attempt to individualise design as a unique practice through cognitive reflections and explanations on its process.

Look at the frame, not the painting

Schön’s main shtick on design practice was not focused on analysing the process but rather framing and contextualizing it. He describes the idea of ‘problem setting’ as a crucial component that holds together the entire process. The point of focusing on this was to allow designers to best understand how to approach the problem before they go about processing how to solve it.

Side note: Much of my theory (and inspiration for the Sustainability Jam Toolkit) comes from Schön’s theory of design process methods. A quote from his book explains this philosophy:

”When ends are fixed and clear, then the decision to act can present itself as an instrumental problem. But when ends are confused and conflicting, there is yet no ‘problem’ to solve”

And what do we call problems that are confusing, conflicting with no clear problem to solve? Altogether now: WICKED PROBLEMS!

If you read Schön’s book, you will notice he rephrases wicked problems as ‘swampy lowlands’. It is exactly the same concept. BUT! Where analytical design theorists love to dissect the process, Schön believes in preserving the mysterious and intuitive aspect of design, another reason why he focuses on just ‘framing’ the problem and not examining how to solve it.

Let us search, instead, for an epistemology of practice implicit in
the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to
situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict
(Schön 1982, p. 49)

This might sound a bit airy-fairy, but in the thick of countless debates in design, the issue of intuition vs science still has scholars throwing punches. For certain areas within design such as graphic design, the intuitive argument Schön likes to put forth is appropriate. But for areas containing wicked problems with results which could affect people, intuition just isnt going to cut it.

What now?

As for my two cents, I personally believe that design can ground itself within science AND art, it just needs to adapt its approach depending on the context and situation. Thanks to scholars in this period we have successfully created some kind of ground theory on design, independent from theory in art and science. The problem today is we have not fully investigated into the practicality of design, the design that does not lean towards intuition but calls for rigorous evaluation.

Hopefully i have made it blindingly obvious that through this journey of fundamental design theories design thinking isnt anything new. What we perceive as some hot new trend has been a topic of discussion for the past 50 years. Despite this fact, design thinking was not ready for our society until now, as the design industry has matured enough to bring this concept into light. As such, we find ourselves sitting on the shore, overlooking a new wave in design; the development of design thinking and its manifestation into methods, minds and all that has come before it. So how do we evolve ? We finally turn to investigating outputs rather than internal processings of the designer or team. In other words, we now evaluate the result of design thinking rather than the thinking itself. We ask ourselves if design thinking really is all it is cracked up to be, and in order to do that we must attempt to quantify its impact.

And what happens next..?

In the posts to come, I will run through the 1990’s to date describing the race through a field of methodologies, finishing at design thinking!

N.B: I am forced to note that the writings in this post (and those that follow) are summaries of research writing undertaken during my PhD. If you wish to refer to these critical examinations, please do so but with with mindfulness that you must reference my work and/or ideas discussed here. All images are also my own. Thanks and goodnight! 🙂

Global Service Jam 2012

Ah yes. A little delayed but here nonetheless…

My role at this years global service jam was not dissimilar to my role at the sustainability jam. I was asked to be involved by one of the primary organisers, Gin, who i had met from the sustainability jam.

I figured that participating in the organisation of a jam (again) would strengthen my understanding of workshopping, teamwork and facilitation. I didn’t expect to learn anything more insightful than i did from the sustainability jam (as both events are pretty much identical in nature) but i kept my mind open. I also knew that pulling together a service design toolkit might actually be trickier than the sustainability toolkit i had collated previously (will explain later).

Organisation

We held a meet-n-greet event prior to the jam. Image courtesy of Cat Dos Santos

Our initial meetings included the two initiators of the Melbourne jam as well as a few employees from Melbourne based service design company Huddle. Huddle offered to host the service jam in their office and meetings leading up to the event grew in numbers with more employees offering a helping hand. By the time of the event, we had 8 organisers on board; 6 Huddle employees, the two initiators and myself. This was a tremendous effort compared to the sustainability jam, which had only 5 organisers helping out.

The extra aid was beneficial for keeping multiple tasks running with momentum, such as media and promotion.  Aside from organising the toolkit, structure and facilitating at the event, I was asked to invite a “professional” to speak at the opening night on design thinking and service design. There was no better person in my mind to invite than my secondary supervisor, and Swinburne’s go-to-guy for academics studying design thinking, Gavin Melles.

The network wall. Image courtesy of Cat Dos Santos

Other organisers were also asked to hunt around for speakers and “mentors” for the event. It was decided that all organisers would be ‘facilitators’, i.e., people offering general help over the weekend, and that we would also include mentors – people who are ‘specialists’ or ‘professionals’ in a specific area.

Structure

Prior to collating the toolkit, I needed to create the structure of the jam that would run over the weekend. This is because the toolkit is inherently the structure of the jam as well as a guide of methods that groups can work through over the 48 hours. I still cant stress enough how important this was for the jam in general, because after now having witnessed 2 jams I can say with confidence that the most organised and developed concepts were groups that stuck to the process structure and used the toolkit as a guide.

Image courtesy of Cat Dos Santos

I do not enforce the kit on anyone. It is a choice for participants to make; if some feel confident with the service design process, they need not use it. But most of the participants at the jams are new to these sorts of process methods and want to learn, and as such need a guide to help them stay on track.

Toolkit

Collating the toolkit was not as easy as i first thought. This was because service design is so iterative that it was difficult to clearly define methods as belonging to a specific ‘phase’ of the process. Almost all of the methods could have been used in any stage of the process, and i pointed out to groups that it is OK to feed  back through previous phases as their projects develop. This was one of the the primary differences between the service jam and the sustainability jam. The sustainability jam toolkit required more research from a broader range of methods as it was open to any sort of outcome. As a result, participants didnt have much time to ‘feedback’ through phases and it was easier to clearly define phases and collect methods that suit specific steps in the project (which also ensured participants didnt go back and forth through phases and waste time).

The business model canvas. Image courtesy of Cat Dos Santos

The other issue I encountered was a lack of service design resources. I realised that there really wasnt much out there that i could draw upon to put into the toolkit. As a result, I borrowed a few methods from marketing and business disciplines because there simply wasnt enough service design methods to collect. Fortunately, keeping the kit thin was key and I managed to fill out 5 phases with approximately 3 methods in each phase:

1. Inspiration: 

-This includes the theme given to the jammers to work with
-Brainstorming techniques (taken mainly from design thinking: so similar to the susjam brainstorming section…a lot from d.school, IDEO, etc)
-In this section participants decide on a type of service they want to go with, or even an existing service they might like to fix or add to, etc.

2. Understanding: (empathy)

-Includes understanding the values and needs of the customer/user- value mapping, etc
-Who the customer is/defining the market of the service and why it is a need/of value to this customer/demographic
-A rough but holistic understanding of how each facet in the service operates (using mapping tools) so they dont focus too much on just the customer and forget about the ‘bits’ in and around the service. Ensure is just as much about holistic organisational design /business structuring as it is about understanding the needs of the customer
-This is the initial “insight” they gain from understanding their service and (needs of) customer

3. Shaping

– This is where participants start to think a bit deeper into the structure of the service, the touchpoints customers might encounter and the experiences they want to map out.
– This phase and phase 2 will be interchangeable, aka a feedback loop. After initial insight into defining who the customer is, participants may use shaping techniques and realise they might want to go back and re evaluate what the true need is with more insight and information

4. Mapping

– This is basically using a variety of mapping tools to map out the business structure, value grid, customer experience map, customer journey, touchpoints, etc…this is the final ‘draw up’ of all of these different aspects which prepare them for..

5. Presentation

– The easy part as mapping phase pretty much does all of the presentation work. All participants have to do is explain and present the maps they created for their service

In terms of a logical progression through a service design project, this seemed like the most appropriate and rapid structure for the jam that would result in a sound outcome. I also tried to make sure that each step was as simple as possible and refrained from using too much technical jargon.

The Jam

Jamming. Image courtesy of Cat Dos Santos

The service jam has a pre-defined outcome. This makes it easier for participants to focus on what they need to create (unlike the sustainability jam) but also makes it easier for participants to get lost in the details of each phase of the project.

Unfortunately for me, I became ill leading up to the event and was forced to miss the opening night. I could only devote a few hours over the weekend to observing and helping teams. Despite the short amount of time i spent at the jam, i did learn quite a few things from my time there…

What I observed

1. Groups worked more independently than in the sustainability jam. This could be due to the character of participants, but I think this could partially be attributed to the fact that everyone knew their goal was to create a service. This subsequently created a false confidence in some groups.

2. Some groups got lost in the details. Even though everyone knew what they needed to do, there was a LOT of talking, to-ing and fro-ing amongst some team members. I dont think many even realised they were getting lost until a mentor stepped in to point it out. This largely was initiated due to time.

3. Time was not dominant enough. I said this last time about the sustainability jam and ill say it again. Time was not present during the jam. There needed to be a sort of omnipresent pressure from time ticking away- whether this be done by projecting a large clock on a screen, or having a watch on each table. Something like this needed to be done. Having a clock/timer ticking down over participants psychologically pushes individuals to work to deadlines and make quicker decisions. I also realised that having facilitators occasionally chime, “2 hours to go”,  does not trip the psyche to react in the same way as a countdown might.

4. The most thorough projects were ones that utilised the toolkit. It was great to witness groups using the kit, however some only picked up the kit once they were running out of time. The more successful projects appeared to have worked their way through the kit, ticking off each stage which resulted in work completed to be presented.

5. Some mentors felt their input was more disruptive than productive. This may be true for some groups, and perhaps the presence of facilitators and mentors was not as useful as for the sustainability jam (due to point no 1). But when groups needed help, it was a tremendous asset to have a mentor step in and offer professional advice on how to swiftly move on. I wouldnt argue against using mentors in jams, but knowing when to step back and step in is vital for this role.

One more thing…

we're a team!

we're a team!

Compared to the sustainability jam, most of the ‘insights’ i learned from the service jam were based around communication amongst organisers as opposed to observations made about the jam itself. Having a larger team working on the jam proved difficult at times, as internal conversations and decisions were often made without group consultation. It proved again how important it is to include all volunteers in the decision making process and how important it is to have one person managing the tasks of the group. Some tasks fell through due to this. It is easy for members in a large group to feel that someone else may take on a role/job. These are some  of the drawbacks of having extra help on board- someone needs to constantly ‘check in’ to see if everyone is doing their bit. This would be an important piece of advice i would pass on to future organisers, wherever they may be.

And oh yeah! Here is the toolkit! Feel free to download and use at your leisure, or even let me know if you found it useful on a project 🙂

<div style=”width:477px” id=”__ss_12026976″> <strong style=”display:block;margin:12px 0 4px”><a href=”http://www.slideshare.net/stefanie85/melbourne-service-jam-toolkit&#8221; title=”Melbourne Service Jam Toolkit” target=”_blank”>Melbourne Service Jam Toolkit</a></strong> <div style=”padding:5px 0 12px”> View more <a href=”http://www.slideshare.net/&#8221; target=”_blank”>documents</a> from <a href=”http://www.slideshare.net/stefanie85&#8243; target=”_blank”>stefanie85</a> </div> </div>

A Brief History of Design Thinking: The theory [P1]

The first thing most researchers do when commencing a doctorate is dive into a pile of books and write a literature review. This hurdle usually takes around six months of intense study on fundamental literature surrounding the topic of research, with a conclusion highlighting gaps and potentials for future investigation. This is not just a training exercise that eases students into hardcore academia, but builds the foundation of knowledge prior to conducting case study research.

Since my topic surrounds design thinking, it was without any doubt that most of my literature should analyse this. But after a month of surface research, I had gathered enough (current) literature to give me an understanding of what design thinking is and is doing, but none provided any indication on where exactly it came from.

Always listen to the angel on your shoulder

It was this realisation that spurred me to research the origins of design thinking, as i believed that in order to know where we are moving in the future we must first understand from where in the past we have evolved. Over half of my review was dedicated to historical analysis, tracking the major waves which rippled through academia and into practice to what we know as design thinking today.

The literature chunk of my review is split into three sections:

1. A brief history of design theory

2. The evolution of design process methods (forming the foundation leading up to..)

3. What design thinking is today.

So. What im thinking is that i split this up into three posts. Otherwise it will just end up as one big phat chunk of text and frighten you lovely readers away. As with most ‘academic’ posts that i publish, it needs to be said that this is just one interpretation of the evolution of design thinking. I have read (but only a few) others that have taken a different approach- from a business perspective to marketing (all great reads). I have analysed this evolution in context of design theory and major movements in ideologies that i believed influenced practice to where we are today.

(ironic use of typeface)

In reality, design methods usually overlapped at any one point. Other scholars and practitioners will no doubt argue that this history cannot be traced in one path. Unsatisfied and (still) confused, I decided to make an attempt towards constructing some sort of chronological order of the history of design thinking and methods to make it easier for us as researchers and practitioners to understand.

That’s enough of my preface dribble. Now lets get stuck into it…

A Brief history of Design Theory

The First Wave (1960s-1980s)

The design methods movement of the 1960s marked the beginning of an ongoing debate over the process and methodology of design. Academic heavyweights in this period included Horst Rittel, Herbert Simon and Victor Papanek. Each man represented different ideologies on design during this period and have been chosen for the impact that their writings have on design theory today.

1. Herbert Simon: The design – as – science guy

Herbert Simon

If you have ever heard of design described as a process which aims to improve existing environments into preferred ones then be sure to remember that it came from Mr. Simon. This man believed that our world is made up of ‘artifice’; objects create by man. His most notable book titled, The Sciences of the Artificial, analyses in great depth (from economics through to psychology) of the artificial world we have created designed.

As a result, Simon concludes that the ultimate artifice known to man is in fact the human brain. A whole chapter is devoted to the psychological justification of this concept; drawing comparisons between a computer and the human brain, but i wont elaborate on the justifications of that here.

i think therefor i compute

The main purpose of this comparison however, was Simons argument that our brain (like computers- that are constructed by our brains) have limits. Thus, the best we humans can do when designing is aim to ‘satisfice’- because neither the computer nor our brains can comprehend the complexities and variables of our external environment.

robots reflect our brains capacity

Now this may come as a shock to those of you who love to coin rapid prototyping as a ‘innovative’ method, but in fact Simon proposed this concept of simulation (prototyping) as the ultimate way to ensure we come up with the most ‘satisfying’ solutions. This comment from Simon was published back in the 1970s:

“To understand them, the systems had to be constructed, and their behavior observed”

In light of todays large-scale, complex environmental and social issues, Simon stressed the most important factor for successful solutions is an understanding amongst all stakeholders- a common problem understood by all. When faced with large scale societal or environmental problems, Simon knew that the result had to be open and evolving, one without final goals.

2. Horst Rittel: The one who coined ‘wicked problems’ in design

Horst Rittel

Everyone loves to refer to complex design hurdles as ‘wicked’ problems. But many dont realise that 1. the man who coined this phrase is Horst Rittel (in conjunction with another scholar named M.Webber but i shall only refer to Rittel for ease of discussion) and 2. that this phrase was in fact referring to policy planning NOT design as form/function. Rittel was in the same frame of mind as Simon when he explained that a wicked problem is: “unique, ambiguous and has no definite solution”. Coincidentally, Rittel also explains that resolving one problem opens up a whole new set of problems which can never achieve a finite ‘true or false’ solution. Sounds just like ‘satisficing’, doesnt it?

The (closed) design process we use today

In slight contrast to Simon, Rittel believed that science could NOT resolve open, evolving and ambiguous problems. This calls for a more creative approach.

The process that we should be using for complex problems

Rittel goes on to suggest that each ‘wicked’ problem is entirely unique and so too is the process. Perhaps the best advice we can take from Rittel’s knowledge on wicked problems, is:

“Part of the art of dealing with wicked problems is the art of not knowing too early which type of solution to apply”

Stinks of ambiguity and uncertainty, doesnt it? But today that is what we like to call design thinking.

3. Victor Papanek: The sustainable design guru

victor papanek

Before Al Gore presented his doco, An Inconvenient Truth, an industrial designer named Victor Papanek was quietly advocating the importance of shifting our product driven perspective to using our design knowledge for resolving societal and environmental problems. His book, Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, dates back to 1972 and has remained a landmark in the field of sustainable design.

Papanek’s book primarily concerns itself with arguing over the moral obligations and responsibilities of design. Addressing fundamental societal needs is key, as Papanek states himself:

 “Recent design has satisfied only evanescent wants and desires, while the genuine needs of man have often been neglected”

Could this reflect what we call ‘value’ and ’empathy’ in service design, human centered design and design thinking?

This may also come as a shock to the innovation gurus of today, but Papanek periodically refers to ‘innovation’ throughout his book as a result of simplifying complexity. [Cue Albert Einsteins quote]. In order to achieve this, Papanek draws from experience, knowledge and intuition. Young innovation entrepreneurs take note.

This was fun, wasnt it?

And so concludes the first installment of my very brief history on the theory behind design thinking. In the following post i shall explore the second wave of design theory; looking at individuals such as Richard Buchanan, Nigel Cross and Donald Schon.

N.B: I am forced to note that the writings in this post (and those that follow) are summaries of research writing undertaken during my PhD. If you wish to refer to these critical examinations, please do so but with with mindfulness that you must reference my work and/or ideas included. All images are also my own. Thanks and goodnight! 🙂