Design process as a practice

For designers, the outcomes of a design project are key, whereas in academia, the study of the process has been the focus for a long time (Tan, 2012, p. 36). In fact, Dubberly (2005) has collected over 100 different design and development process models from architecture, industrial design, mechanical engineering, quality management and software development. In service design, multiple different process models have been developed by design researchers, authors and companies (see e.g. IDEO’s model from UserTesting, 2018; Design Council, 2019; Moritz, 2005; Van Oosterom, 2009). Processes are valuable for designers as they help us to tolerate the uncertainty in development as well as explain how solutions and improvements ought to happen. According to Holmlid and Evenson (2008), the process of service design differs from conventional approaches because, instead of defining strategy at the beginning, service design starts with exploratory or immersive research to discover opportunities for innovation in strategy.

There is one specific process model worth mentioning here, the double diamond, which was proposed in 2005 and further developed in 2019 by the Design Council in the United Kingdom. This is one of the most widely known and used process models of design, especially in service design. The two diamonds represent the process of exploring an issue more widely and deeply (divergent thinking) and then taking focused action (convergent thinking) (Design Council, 2019). The diamonds are divided into four phases of the design process: Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver (Figure 3). In the more developed version, it is emphasised that this is not a linear process, as shown by the arrows, that making and testing can be part of discovery, not a single phase in the process, and that in an ever- changing and digital world, no idea is ever ‘finished’ but through feedback it is iteratively improved (Design Council, 2019). The process models describe how the design practice happens and what the important contents of it are. In relation to this it is good to notice that although widely used, replicable processes and universal models of design emphasise problem-solving, replicable methods and outcomes, while detaching knowledge, people and relationality from the sites of design’s embodiment (Akama et al., 2019, p. 59).

Kettunen (2015) in his lecture slides presented an interesting map about the design process. The design process can be defined and described by two intersecting dimensions between two extremities: 1) individual versus collaborative and 2) rational versus reflective. The nature of the design process changes in different corners of the map. If the design process is individual and rational, it could be described as the process of a design hero. Consequently, individual and reflective is the process of a bricoleur. Moving towards the collaborative side of design processes, one that is collaborative and individual is a dominant techno-rational process, whereas the collaborative and reflective

requires a design process that is situated and participatory. All these different viewpoints towards design processes exist, the latter being most influential for me.

To open a door between the design process and design practice, we need to consider the process models as attempts to describe design practice in a verbal and visual form. They tell us in broad terms how design happens, that is, the important phases or ways of progressing in design. The traditional roles of design, designer and designed object are redefined through a new understanding of the relationship between the material and immaterial aspects of design, where the design process is the embodiment of ideas, values and beliefs (Zelenko & Felton, 2012). A focus outside of the marketplace initiates ‘a design process intended to contribute to improving human well-being and livelihood (Fuad-Luke, 2009, p. 152).

Discover

Define

Develop

Deliver

Connecting the dots and building relationships between different citizens, stakeholders and partners.

Creating the conditions that allow innovation, including culture change, skills and mindset.

OUTCOME DESIGN

PRINCIPLES 1. Be People Centred 2. Communicate (Visually & Inclusively)

3. Collaborate & Co-Create 4. Iterate, Iterate, Iterate

METHODS BANK Explore, Shape, Build

CHALLENGE

© Design Council 2019

Dorst (2003) described the design process as partly creating the landscape one will travel through. Recognising that designers also participate in service worlds along with those they design with and for also has implications for how we understand the design process (Blomberg & Darrah, 2015, p. 183). Design processes take place in particular situations and are carried out from embedded positions (e.g. Haraway, 1988; Suchman, 2011). This bridges processes and practices and allows us to understand them as enabling people to get things done in the world. In addition, the processes always involve aspects that cannot be arranged ahead of time.

To say that design is situated is to highlight the interactions and interdependencies amongst designers, designs, design methods and the use situation with its actors, activities, structures, particulars and broader context (Simonsen et al., 2014, p. 1). Design methods, but also the whole design process, should be situated. This is recognised in service design as well, where there is growing awareness that the dominant discourse is insufficient for understanding the situated nature of service design practice (e.g. Akama & Prendiville, 2013; Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2011). The dominant understanding of human-centred design and co-design presents practitioners as culturally neutral, objective, interchangeable and a-geographical, which they of course are not (Akama et al., 2019, p. 62). We could say that there is a need to understand design processes as embedded in communities of practice, and that there is a need to disclose how design is constituted by who we are, our relationality in the world and how this is manifested through our practices when we co-design with people (Akama et al., 2019).

I argue that situatedness can be understood only in collaboration with the people who participate in design processes. Descriptions of design processes are valuable and helpful but impersonal and even distancing. For that reason, I have focused in my research on the practice perspective, and through that, I aimed at understanding the design process through personal experiences of service design workshops. Nevertheless, I feel it is important to mention here that, behind the recent critique and recognition of complexities as well as contextual constraints that surround service design practice, there is a long history of aiming to visualise and explain that practice through process models and descriptions. The critique is not so much on what has been done but more on which aspects have been highlighted.