Design Process and Second Generation Methods

Since many methods and tools that vary according to their objectives, mechanism and activities are currently being used in the design process, both in research and practice, we should start with some general definitions.

Design process as defined by the Design Dictionary is generally viewed as

98 the means by which people shape their surroundings. […] Designers are trained to conceptualize the process of design as a series of activities that unfold over time, and to view the completion of each activity as a step toward some predefined goal. (Teixeira et al. 2008, p.

128).

Design methods

serve as an infrastructure through which information is conveyed and knowledge is codified […] In other words, they are the rules and routines with which practitioners develop common perspectives and build upon lessons learned by others. (Rickenberg 2008, p. 121)

Design methodology as described by Cross (1984) is

the study of the principles, practices and procedures of design in a rather broad and general sense. Its central concern is with how designing both is and might be conducted. This concern therefore includes the study of how designers work and think; the establishment of appropriate structures for the design process; the development and application of new design methods, techniques, and procedures; and reflection on the nature and extent of design knowledge and its application to design problems. (P. vii)

Within the last decade, many design methodologists have emphasized simple models to describe their design process. Most of these depend on importing methods and tools from other disciplines such as the natural or social sciences in order to give the process a scientific dimension. In this regard, the “design methods movement”, which emerged in the early 1960s in England and was active for almost twenty years, aimed at promoting research efforts in design on the one hand, and on the other at creating a wide design research community connecting different design practices:

architecture, industrial design, planning, graphic design and cybernetics (Margolin 2002, pp. 246-248). The leading figures in this movement were Christopher Alexander, Bruce Archer and John Chris Jones, the author of Design Methods published in 1970.

In retrospect, however, all their efforts (conceived as first generation design methods) seem to have failed and their goal of coping with the complex problems of reality remained unfulfilled. This pushed the first generation theorists to call for second generation of attempts. Within these attempts, came a call for “design as a science” by Archer, “he believed that design knowledge would be deepened if it were grounded in a field of science like inquiry” (Margolin 2002, p. 247). Such a science was shared by Herbert Simon in his book: The Science of the Artificial (1996), where he distinguished between two disparate disciplinary goals: the goal of the natural sciences is to answer the question how things are and how they work; whereas a designer’s goal concentrates rather on how things ought to be (see pp. 111-114). This means the former aims at finding explanations, whereas the latter aims at finding solutions for existing problems in order to change the situation into a desirable one.

The most notable suggestion was offered by Rittel (1972) when he called for “second generation design methods”. According to Rittel (1972, pp. 323-324), the development in design methodology should be twofold. On the one hand the argumentative design process model should be restructured to focus on studying the logic used by designers for generating information and forming judgments.

On the other hand the instrumental version of the model should be further developed to enhance the process of implementing the argumentative model. Rittel also provided some characteristics and explained some differences between first and second generations in design methods described in the following table (5-1):

99

Table 5- 1: 1st and 2nd generation design methods (created by the author, adapted from Rittel 1972, pp.325-327) 1st generation design methods 2nd generation design methods

1 assume: Asymmetry of ignorance p.326 -there is a professional expertise about other people’s problems

-the designer is knowledgeable about other people’s problems and how they can be solved.

assume: Symmetry of ignorance p.325

- expertise and ignorance about the problem are distributed over all participants

-nobody is more knowledgeable about problems than others (different participants means activating different knowledge)

2 Separation model

-designer plans for client who has the problem without involving him

Conspiracy model of planning to overcome implementation problems

-designer is like a teacher: his role is to show others how to plan for themselves

3 Design process is not argumentative

Listening & understanding > thinking > solution

Design process is argumentative the logic of reasoning of designer:

asking questions > generating info. > forming judgments 4 Professional ethics guiding the designer Transparency of arguments

-to control judgment: because they will affect the solution

5 Objectification

-to raise the right issues regarding their importance and the divergence of opinion on them

6 The aim of getting more involved -planning for others /on behalf of others

The aim of self-elimination -designer is a modest activist -designer moderate optimism

7 Great optimism Moderate optimism

A related situation emerged in 1979, when the shift from “cybernetics” to “2nd order cybernetics” – a phrase coined by Heinz von Foerster that means “observing systems in their interaction with the observed” (qtd. in Jonas 1996, p. 2) – led to the development of a common set of methods that aimed to “widen the scope of subjects of design work, thus helping design to become a more competent and responsible partner in the network of future-shaping disciplines” (Jonas 1996, p. 3).

In the same sense Findeli states that “Systems and complexity theories have further contributed to radical transformation of the mechanistic model of the design process” (2001, p. 10).

If one understands the potential of complexity and system thinking for the design process, it is easy to see why and to what purpose a different kind of design method has emerged within the last decade and what kind of difference is required. The new required methods, according to Jonas (1996), should be “open, integrative, transparent, supporting teamwork, interdisciplinarity and public participation through discourse-supporting communicative structures” (p. 3).

100 5.1.1 Operational model of the design process

The perception of the design process has recently shifted from that of an individual activity concentrated on solving a design problem in isolation (black box) towards that of a collaborative activity aimed at producing products, services or systems that reflect the cooperation amongst the stakeholders. This shift has resulted in a growing need for different operational methods that facilitate communicate and interact in a dynamic context.

Jonas (1996) calls for democratic instruments to support such collaboration:

We need not only looser roles but more public ways of thinking aloud. More visible design processes so that everyone can see what is being decided, and why, before, not after, the main decisions are made. Collaboration before concept-fixing is perhaps the main strength of the required new design methods. The other strength is to provide means of unlearning, publicly, with changing, not fixed, self-images. We need […] a democratic instrumentarium for participatory socio-technical planning in a situation where planning in the original cybernetic sense is impossible. (p. 2)

In general, design process begins with a problem and ends with a solution, but the activities have often been conceptualized within this process in different terms according to different authors, for instance (Hugentobler et al. 2004, p. 8):

 Analysis > divergence > convergence (Jones 1970)

 Analysis > projection > synthesis (Jonas 1996)

 Examination > interpretation > projection > realization (Melican 1997)

 Research > analysis > synthesis > realization (Owen 1998)

 Analysis > synthesis > simulation > evaluation (Roozenburg 2002)

Jonas conceptualizes the design process in three phases: “ANALYSIS (what is the problem?), PROJECTION (How do we want to live?) And SYNTHESIS (what do we need for this?)”. He suggests focusing more on new analysis and projection methods that support “function-oriented "problem design" instead of ultimate, object-oriented "solution design", examining the system in which this happens and “aim[ing] at contexts and scenarios, not products” (Jonas 1996, p. 3).

Together with Jonas, Hugentobler and Rahe (2004) developed a generic process model, presented in the table below, comprising two dimensions: the macro and micro design process. The macro level,

“domains of inquiry” ‒ analysis, projection and synthesis ‒ constitutes the first dimension (processual framework) of this operational model. Communication is considered a soft dimension on this level to facilitate reflecting, integrating and coordinating within the design process. The second dimension is the micro level “steps of inquiry” ‒ research, analysis, synthesis and realization ‒ providing questions and outcomes for a “tailored problem-specific” design process (Hugentobler et al. 2004, p. 8).

These authors offer 12-step model as a structure for organizing a “complete” design process. By selecting and combining different design methods, and moving from one step to another, this model allows for a flexible, tailored design process and will be taken as a manual to develop the model proposed in the present thesis.

101

Table 5- 2: Categories of design methods / tools: questions and outcomes (Source: Hugentobler; Jonas; Rahe 2004, p. 12)

In this system, the choice of different domains determines the kind of design process that will be accomplished, for example:

 a “future” studies process is the result of combining the analytic and projection phases;

 a “normal” design process focuses on analysis and synthesis, ignoring the projection phase;

 a “risky” design process considers projection and synthesis without the analysis phase.

Table 5- 3: Three Types of design & design research processes (Source: Hugentobler; Jonas; Rahe 2004, p. 11)

My intention is to construct an operational model of the design process to facilitate processing the data gathered in the empirical section of this thesis. Therefore, I choose this 12-step model of design process as a comprehensive operational model that will later be filled with appropriate methods for each phase in order to accomplish the empirical study.