(Re)framing Design
Design is and always has been part of something much bigger than itself.
One of the many difficulties in understanding it however, is its multifaceted nature and pervasiveness, but that’s what makes it so interesting, particularly if subscribe to the theory that design is just one expression, one mode of human creativity.
So I wonder can we re-frame how we perceive and explain design so that it is more unified and wholly appreciated?
Design bridges the divide between problem situations, decision-making, and problem solutions through the duality of its ‘sense-making’ and ‘change-making’ activities. It connects us to how we aspire the world to be. It deals creatively with paradoxes and exists entirely on a spectrum with an amorphous reality across several different paradigms that parallel and connect to each other without replacing or cancelling each other out (VanPatter 2009.)
As a designer, in a contemporary setting; ‘you are not operating within a single, distinct domain’ (Oxman 2016) as the nature of contemporary problems are; ‘open (no boundaries), complex (many elements and relationships), dynamic (shifting over time) and networked (influenced across fields) — which require radically different and evolved responses to that which preceded it (Dorst 2015.)
Which is why I’ve come to the belief that design is not just a disciplinary field but rather a framework of approaches that exist on a spectrum.
The concept I’ve been using for explaining this is like how the ‘mood spectrum’ in psychiatry is used to describe a range of linked conditions, symptoms and traits and where they differentiate within psychological disorders.
I’ve been doing this because jobs, specialisations and titles within the design community will morph, mutate and transform over time. Old ones will become replaced or redefined with new ones as our demands change. Trends will come and go, but, how we approach, frame and apply design will always have this universal structure.
The connection between which approach, which orientation is decided upon is the result of the problem situation at hand. Which will in-turn always dictate how we go about applying certain methods that then enacts which processes and specialisations will be utilised.
Hence why the ‘spectrum’ concept seems appropriate because it holistically links and differentiates all design regardless of different professional standards or issues that drive how they operate within an organisation. The definable field of design (as a spectrum) is one that is pluralistic, unified, and diverse. It encompasses thinking approaches; frameworks, methods, processes (geared towards decision-making) and of course disciplines (craftsmanship).
The definable field of design (as a spectrum) is one that is pluralistic, unified, and diverse. It encompasses approaches; frameworks, methods, processes (geared towards decision-making) and of course disciplinary craftsmanship.
So my prevailing consensus is this, on one hand, we have a human-centred design approach (HCD) that focuses on the extracting and crafting structure whereby using the experience to help shape intuition. Whereas on the other hand, we have a ‘post-human’ design (PHD) approach, that will eventually teach intelligent machine systems to create the hierarchies and compositions of human behaviour (Faste 2015.)
But let’s not forget what sits in between these polarities too because they are just as important. To the left closest to the human-centred extreme we have the ‘communication design’ (CoD) approach which is concerned in totality with how messages transmit through certain media (channels) to inform, inspire, create desire, motivate and attract attention, to which in turn people respond too (communicate.) This is where most people grasp design.
Further along we have the ‘experience design’ (XD) approach, which is about designing products, services and spaces that help permeate good perceptions and impressions and that facilitate useful, intuitive and usable interactions between humans and these artefacts, because a positive ‘experience is both a necessity and an advantage’ in business but also in our everyday lives (Newbery 2014.)
In the centre, we have the ‘strategic design’ (SD) approach. It’s ostensibly a frame innovation methodology used for abduction reasoning and explorations in ‘sense-making’ that are used to inform the implementation and activities associated with the other side of design, ‘change-making.’ It consists of form and frame reasoning methods that are used to assess ‘problem situations’ beyond that of just everyday business challenges (Dorst 2015.) It involves breaking away from the traditional way of seeing things to generate new ways of perceiving value (Dorst 2010).
It redefines how problems are approached, identifies opportunities for action, and helps deliver more complete and resilient solutions. Strategic design is about crafting decision-making. — Helsinki design lab
Moving further to the right, we have the Systems Orientated Design (SoD) approach which comes from the intersection between design and systems thinking methods (Sevaldson, 2013). As an approach it emerged from the originating field of ‘systems thinking’ after it ‘never achieved the success its proponents hoped for’ (Collopy 2009.) As a result of the washout, all the methods and techniques were reevaluated, reinterpreted and redesigned so that there was a more pluralistic approach that could appropriately investigate the rich design space and deal with large-scale ecologies and their complexities. Systems Orientated Design distinguishes itself in terms of scale, social complexity and integration — and is mostly concerned with higher order systems that entail multiple subsystems (Sevaldson, 2013.)
Heavily informed by modern systems thinking and theories such as soft systems method, systems architecting, and critical systems thinking. It also contains a series of proprietary concepts, methods, and techniques. Amongst them scenario and GIGAmapping which draws from and combines many mapping types into one interrelated whole map as the way to connect, frame and manage large-scale problems and opportunities. (Sevaldson, 2013)
By integrating systems thinking with design thinking and its methods, Systems Orientated Design adapts known design competencies — form and process reasoning, social and generative research methods, and sketching and visualisation practices — as a way to break schemata down and to find new points in the systems were an intervention to ‘problem-solutions’ can have an impact.
To the right closest to the ‘post-human’ Design (PHD) extreme we have ‘trans-human design’ (H+) which is about transforming and enhancing the human cognition and physiology through a technological singularity. It’s not a new approach either, one that’s been part of the discourse surrounding science, philosophy and technology since the 1930’s because it’s ‘focus is solely on changing the functionality of the human body, sensory systems and mind’ (Rothman 2015.) The aim of this type of approach is to work ‘within an individual or egocentric frame of reference, and go so far as to include direct control and permanent alteration of the user including direct manipulation of biological function and also behaviour’ (Rothman 2015.) The symbiosis between human and technology, whether that’s robotic or chemical, is one that opens up a great ethical debate. That’s because this approach show’s how we are radically trying to extend and change human life, particularly when you see advancements in genetic design with CRISPR techniques or with even simpler biohacking tools such as nootropics that illustrate our need and desire to want even to make our biology even better.
Transhuman Design is ‘Experience Focused Engineering’ –David J. Kelley 2015
The benefit to design practice
The advantage of taking an applied spectrum approach means we can overlay the entire disciplinary field of design categorically and in a way that shows the whole system of approaches on a continuum, along with which every “designer” can sit.
Firstly by theorising about it this way we can explore and investigate the connections between historical evolutions but also the ‘sense-making’ skills and the creative destruction and ‘change-making’ skills all designers can use. We are showing how interchangeable, and particular continuous sets of design skills are, how they connect and are transferable between one another. But also showing what makes them different from one another too.
In this way we are integrating all design; approaches, methods, disciplines into a coherent whole.
Secondly by using the spectrum we can view design on meta-level to show how the use of homogenous (ubiquitising) and heterogeneous (differentiating) design methods affect the future development of all creative cultures via design initiatives (Hall 2016.)
And since “we live in a constructed world where everything around us is made,” to one degree or another, design is therefore all around us. If we can then tangibly engage and develop a more positive acceptance of the variations and diversity within design approaches, then we can also unify them to make it better — as a result, our education in design and through design drastically changes.
So as the practice of design has changed and will continue to transform as our demands as humans change, the hope that I want to bring is that by re-framing design as a ‘spectrum’ we can find a deeper understanding and appreciation for all design, designers skill-sets and overall the creative intelligence one can imbue.
The future of design relies on us being able to have some accurate and carnal knowledge of all design disciplines and methods, and being able to blend, integrate and harmonise them together.
However, the growing challenge that I see on the horizon for all those employing design looking into the future is that as the world gets more and more complex because of our increasing demands, the question ahead of us is; how will the practice, methods and role of design fit into the larger framework of progressive change?
References
Collopy 2009, ‘Lessons Learned — Why the Failure of Systems Thinking Should Inform the Future of Design Thinking’ https://www.fastcompany.com/1291598/lessons-learned-why-failure-systems-thinking-should-inform-future-design-thinking retrieved retrieved 19.09.2016
Dorst, K. 2007, ‘The Problem of the Design Problem’ in Cross, N.G. Edmonds, E. (eds), Expertise in Design — Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Creativity and Cognition Studios Press, Sydney.
Dorst, K. 2006, ‘Design Problems and Design Paradoxes’, Design Issues, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 4–17.
Dorst, K. 2010, ‘The Nature of Design Thinking.’ Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8). Sydney, October 19–20, 131–139. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.830.7531&rep=rep1&type=pdf retrieved 26.8.2016
Dorst, K. 2015, ‘Frame Innovation: Create new thinking by design’, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA pp. 9–12, 41–58
Fast, H. 2016, ‘A Post-Human World Is Coming. Design Has Never Mattered More’ http://www.fastcodesign.com/3060742/a-post-human-world-is-coming-design-has-never-mattered-more retrieved 06.09.2016
Hall, A. 2016, ‘Designing Creative Destruction’ Design Research Society: Future-focused thinking Conference Paper, UK. retrieved 25.07.2016
Newbery, P. 2014, ‘Experience Design: When Innovation Isn’t Enough’ Wired. http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/03/experience-design-innovation-isnt-enough/ retrieved 13.03.2014
Oxman, N. 2016, ‘Age of Entanglement.’ Journal of Design and Science. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab. https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/ retrieved 11.06.2016
Rothman, P. 2015, ‘Transhumanist Design at CHI 2015’ http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/04/21/transhumanist-design-at-chi-2015/ retrieved 24.04.2015
Sevaldson, B. 2009, Systems Oriented Design. http://www.systemsorienteddesign.net/ retrieved 27.10.2016
Sevaldson, B. 2011, GIGA-Mapping: Visualisation for complexity and systems thinking in design. In Nordic Design Research Conferences, Making Design Matter. Helsinki: NORDES. http://ocs.sfu.ca/nordes/index.php/nordes/2011/paper/view/409 retrieved 27.10.2016
Sevaldson. B, 2013. Systems Oriented Design: The emergence and development of a designerly approach to address complexity. In 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Oslo, Norway. retrieved 27.10.2016
VanPatter, G. K. 2009, ‘Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 The Rise of Visual SenseMaking’ in the NextD Journal ReReThinking Design http://humantific.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/NextD_Design_4.0.pdf retrieved 31.08.2016
