Bryan Lawson

Lawson’s contribution comes through the criticism of the models developed by Markus (1969), Maver (1970) and Darke (1978). According to Lawson (2006) the cognitive design process not only involves analysis and synthesis, but also the negotiation process between problem and solution (Figure 35 - Appendix 6). For Lawson, the key aspect of design is the difficulty of delineating the design problem. For him, solutions assist the finding of problems (and this is what he calls ‘negotiation’). Further aspects related to key points identified by Lawson (2006) are presented in the following.

P1. “Our final attempt at a map of the design process shows this

negotiation between problem and solution with each seen as a reflection of the other (Figure 35). The activities of analysis, synthesis and evaluation are certainly involved in this negotiation but the map does not indicate any starting and finishing points or the direction of flow from one activity to another. However, this map cannot be read too literally since any visually understandable diagram is probably far too much of a simplification of what is clearly a highly complex mental process.”

P2 “The process involves finding as well as solving problems. … the

designer must inevitably expend considerable energy in identifying problems. It is central to modern thinking about design that problems and solutions are seen as emerging together, rather than one following logically upon the other. The process is thus less linear than implied by many of the maps … but rather more argumentative. That is, both problem and solution become clearer as the process goes on.”

P3. “ … there is no natural end to the design process. There is no way of

deciding beyond doubt when a design problem has been solved. Designers simply stop designing either when they run out of time or when, in their judgement, it is not worth pursuing the matter further.”

P4. “ … we learn about design problems largely by trying to solve them.”

P5. “Eberhard (1970) as cited in Lawson 2006… there are two ways in

which designers can retreat back up the hierarchy of problems, by escalation and by regression. … escalation leads to an ever wider definition of the problem. … This behaviour is only one logical outcome in practice of the notion that analysis precedes synthesis and data collection precedes analysis. As we have seen, in design it is difficult to know what problems are relevant and what information will be useful until a solution is attempted. ‘…design consists of analysis, synthesis and evaluation linked in an iterative cycle … designers are often solution focused and work by generating ideas about whole or partial solutions. These solutions are sometimes developed and sometimes abandoned.”

P6. “The design process: (1) the process is endless; (2) there is no infallibly correct process; (3) the process involves finding as well as solving problems; (4) design inevitably involves subjective value judgement; (5) design is a prescriptive activity; (6) designers work in the context of a need for action.”

P7. “…analysis involves the exploration of relationships, looking for

patterns in the information available, and the classification of objectives. Analysis is the ordering and structuring of the problem. Synthesis on the other hand is characterised by an attempt to move forward and create a response to the problem – the generation of solutions.”

From the above, we infer that:

Types of problems

According to Lawson’s model, the design process follows an analytical-synthetic route and has both problematical type of analysis and solution through synthesis (P2, P3 and P6). However, as discussed in the end of this section, the process proposed by Lawson seems to follow an inductive approach rather than a deductive one.

Modes of reasoning

• Regressive: the use of regressive reasoning is considered in P5.

• Decompositional: in P5 the term ‘escalation’ is used in a similar way for what is meant by the decompositional mode of reasoning.

• Demonstrative: in P6 design is considered as a prescriptive activity, thus revealing the demonstrative characteristic of synthesis.

• Induction: there is evidence in P4 of looking into solutions and recognizing in them new problems that were not previously identified.

Process characteristics

• Iteration: in P5 iteration is recognised as part of synthesis, i.e. problem information is collected, and then solutions proposed lead to revisiting the problem.

• Deliberation: deliberation is perceived in analysis and synthesis. In P2 and P6, the words ‘argumentative’ and ‘subjective value judgements’ are the clue for this characteristic.

Table 18 - Comparative investigation of analysis and synthesis and Lawson (2006)

Analysis Lawson (2006) Synthesis Lawson (2006)

Ty p e s Theoretical NI NA NA Problematical P2; P3; P6 Solution P2; P3; P6 Mo d e s o f R e a so n Regressive P5 Progressive NI Decompositional P5 Compositional NI Transformative NI Demonstrative P7 Abduction NI Induction P4 Pr o c e ss c ha ra c te ris tic s

Starting point NI Starting point NI

Iteration NI Iteration P5

Heuristic NI Heuristic NI

a priori NI a posteriori NI

Deliberation P2; P6 Deliberation P2; P6

Deductive

reasoning NI Inductive reasoning P4

NI: Not Identified

In relation to Lawson’s point of view regarding the design process, Lawson’s explanation related to what is meant by analysis and synthesis seems similar to the ancient method, however the description of the tasks within his explanation relates to synthesis more that analysis. In this respect, in P1 evaluation is seen as being an independent process rather than the result of synthesis. Also, Lawson describes different design tactics to deal with problem finding. In this regard, all the tactics described are based on synthesis. Finally, it is also argued by him that data collection precedes analysis. Because Lawson does not provide detailed information about how data is collected, here we related this to Riemann’s idea of knowledge prior to analysis and synthesis.