Sub-model 2: frame modification with reflection

As we already mentioned, this part of the RFD model accounts for ill-structured problems that exhibit one interesting feature. Namely, the designer is able to construct a sound and admissible solution, but this is not accepted. Consequently, the designer has to articulate the tacit feeling of the unacceptability and justify the decision not to accept the current solution. This articulation and justification, however, happens in a new conceptual frame. A designer amends the original frame so that it shows the features that may have been responsible for its unacceptability and rejection in explicit terms.

Typically, this class of problem commands sound problem solving theories, which are consistent with the explicit problem specification. Therefore, one purpose of the articulation of a new frame is to introduce new knowledge (requirements, constraints or structural primitives) that would reflect a contradiction between the current solutions and the tacit expectations on the explicit level. However, an important characteristic of these problems is that the new frame is articulated somewhat tentatively, to explore if this amendment is addressing the tacit feeling or not. The purpose of this exploratory probing is to look at the problem from a different perspective and specify it differently – ‘acceptably’.

As we mentioned in the review, these perspective shifts are usually reflective (section 4.2.2).

Designers frame the problem in a different conceptual vocabulary to reflect, uncover and criticise their tacit understanding of the design situation. The whole process of framing is driven by the goal to produce a more thorough understanding of the design problem together with a more complete explicit problem specification and problem solving theory. Consequently, the belief justifying the re-framing is to construct an acceptable design solution. If this is achieved and a solution in a new frame is (more) acceptable, the exploratory probe reflecting on the tacit expectations has been ‘successful’.

Consider a typical scenario illustrating the above-mentioned reflective probing. This extract is taken from Schön’s (1983) case study of an architecture student whose task was to design a site for a future school (pages 79-104). The student framed a very vaguely specified problem using a few explicit commitments and requirements she wanted to impose on the design situation. For instance, she decided on the conceptual primitives such as ‘classroom’, ‘gym’, ‘playground’, and ‘slope’. From the theory of architecture, she opted for a diagrammatic plan of the site, in which all the buildings were in an easy-to-reach distance from each other. Thus, an extract from the first iteration may look as follows:

a) Circumscribing conceptual frame:

• ‘School site comprises classroom, gym, playground, …’;

• ‘The school site is located on a sloping terrain, the elevation of slope is 15 feet’

b) Problem specification (required features):

• ‘Individual buildings shall be in a close walking distance from each other’;

• ‘The buildings on the site need to fit the shape of the slope’;

• ‘The school shall have six classrooms’

c) Problem specification (constraining conditions):

• ‘There should be at least one playground on site’;

• ‘The minimum height of a classroom is 5 feet (from safety regulations) d) Domain theory (based on the theory of architecture, norms, etc.):

• ‘A diagrammatic layout features geometrical objects, mainly rectangles’;

• ‘Open space and playground are typically inside the ‘circle’ of other buildings’

e) Problem solving theory and one solution candidate:

• ‘My school site complying with a simple diagrammatic plan is shown in Figure 6–2a’;

• ‘A more significant diagrammatic plan is achieved by grouping the geometrical shapes into larger units (see L-shaped classrooms in Figure 6–2b)

Choosing a prototypic approach enabled the student to draw an early sketch of her design. This sketch (shown in Figure 6–2) incorporated the ‘primitive’ blocks of her school site into the slope.

However, the early commitment was not successful. The student reflected on the proposal with her tutor, and they agreed that the site ‘was ugly’ in terms of relating the buildings and the slope. Thus, the tutor and the student had certain expectations from the site and their respective designs, which were not met by the early solution. As the tutor put it, one thing he did not like was that the approach lacked

‘discipline’, which he considered even more important for such an atypical site.

Figure 6–2. School site plans in the basic ‘diagrammatic’ frame

He suggested that the incorporation of the site uniqueness (the site was on a gently inclined slope) into the layout may restore the ‘beauty’. This restoration could include ‘carving’ the classrooms into the slope, thus achieving a unique geometrical discipline both horizontally and vertically. The slope was no longer attended to as a monolithic unit of the site; it was divided into three levels. Thus, each significant L-shape from the original student’s drawing acquired a counter-measure in the slope, which improved the discipline of the site. Thus, a re-framed design situation can be expressed in the following conceptual terms:

f) New circumscribing conceptual frame:

• ‘A coherence between school buildings and site geography is emphasised’;

• ‘The discipline can be achieved by incorporating significant shapes of the school site into the landscape of the slope’

g) Problem specification (required features) re-visited:

• ‘The site should fit into the geometry of the slope’;

• ‘The buildings should be connected by the sloping landscape of the site’;

• ‘The fit shall be observable in both the horizontal and vertical plans of the site’

h) Domain theory (based on the theory of architecture, norms, etc.) re-visited:

• ‘A sloping landscape requires splitting the site into smaller coherent units’

i) Problem solving theory and acceptable solution candidate:

• ‘My school site complying with the new perspective is shown in Figure 6–3’;

• ‘It also implements interesting extensions, such as precincts and galleries (see Figure 6–4)’

Thus, a modified conceptual frame for attending to the problem contains new concepts of ‘site geography’ and ‘discipline’. Furthermore, new requirements emerged for the adaptation of a prototypic diagrammatic school plan to this unique landscape. The new frame helped to impose the diagrammatic plan onto the slope rather seamlessly (see plan A in Figure 6–3). From an initial tacit need of

‘discipline’, a new concept ‘nooks’ emerged that made the site more compact (see plans B and C in Figure 6–3). In addition, entirely new opportunities opened in the re-framed situation, e.g. concepts

‘precincts’ and ‘galleries’ suddenly arose from a disciplined landscape (see Figure 6–4). A new a) basic diagrammatic

plan b) ‘significant’

diagrammatic shapes

perspective was based on the original one; nonetheless, it was much more coherent and it naturally fit, complemented, and used the specifics of the ‘screwy shape’ of the slope.

Figure 6–3. School site with the imposed horizontal and vertical discipline

Figure 6–4. New concepts unexpectedly emerging in a re-framed situation

Note that this is only a short episode from Schön’s case study, which continued with more re-framing. New features emerged from an attempt to satisfy the specification in the amended frame, which led to the repetition of the reflective criticism and further frame development. Nevertheless, the above extract shows how a tacit perception of ‘site ugliness’ led to an incorporation of new knowledge thanks to the shift in the design student’s perspective. All the figures presented above are borrowed from (Schön 1983).