Design Approach Patterns

One of the tools that we developed and used for our Ceramic Futures 2 process to better connect scenarios, concepts and storytelling approaches when designing the future. Try improving and applying it!

In CF2 our goal was helping participants to develop solid design fiction proposals.

We strongly believe in design as a medium to render complex issue to a wider public and meaningful tool for forecasting futures.

All of that deals with building stories in which in different ways design outputs can play a role, just as characters.

An interesting parallel, that is a crucial premise for this experience, is the one between storytelling and design, nothing new so far. We can argue that every design approach (nowadays we can list a few..) is a way of storytelling, applying many different storytelling patterns.

We are quite laicist towards too strict methodologies. We believe that everybody should build his own processes the way he feels more comfortable with. We advocate a casual and hybrid assemblage of many different tools and approaches built up with consistency to both design aims and individual skills and talents and experiences.

How to guide students in such a complicated and self-conscious path?

Firstly it is required to render approaches compatible among them. We selected an inductive approach.

We took into consideration CF1 proposals from Politecnico di Milano and we decided to locate them in a cross diagram based on possible/impossible and desired/undesired polarities. These polarities are consistent with general parameters we asked students in research stage: socio-cultural future trends (desired/undesired) and technological ones (possible/impossible):

The first pic, shows positions of CF1 scenarios, here few considerations:

- majority of them is located in possible/undesired section, this is a typical design approach: we search for problems or needs, we search the ones we are able to deal with;

- possible/desired sector hosts the optimist of progress: we are building a better world raising new and engaging needs.

- the impossible realm, either desired or undesired isn’t apparently giving much inspiration to designers (of last year course)

Second pic shows CF1 scenarios + ceramic qualities taken into consideration by participants to empower their concepts.

The third picture is crucial — here concepts are added (RED):

Red arrows show the shift in sectors that concepts apply to scenarios. Concept is what you do to affect/change your scenario. As it is evident, certain “patterns” (that is arrows directions) are appearing. The questions are: what does each pattern mean (what do I aim to by making a certain movement)? Which specific features does each pattern present?

Fourth pic analyses patterns emerged in CF1:

“User-centered solution”
Using classical design approach to move between undesired problem to desired solution

“Contradictory stakeholders”
Problem solved for one part is undesired by the opposite

“Critical Design”
Highlighting, emphasizing and articulating existing problem, not trying to solve it, but communicate it’s importance to public instead

“Moonshot” according to Google:
“Moonshots live in the gray area between audacious projects and pure sciencection; instead of mere 10% gains, they aim for 10x improvements. The combination of a huge problem, a radical solution, and the breakthrough technology that might just make that solution possible is the essence of a Moonshot. Great Moonshot discussions require an innovative mindset—including a healthy disregard for the impossible—while still maintaining a level of practicality.”

pic 5 is about all the patterns that even if did not emerged from CF1 experience may appear in the diagram:

“Tech-driven design”
Starting from impossible state finding ways to make it happen

“Preventive design”
Compensate bad situation making it impossible

“Changing values?”
Education about better possibilities, demonstration of different options (Ikea + expensive furniture)

“Antidesign/sabotage”
Can serve for provocative storytelling? (zeppelins? ultrasonic passenger flights, nuclear energy)

“Dystopia/utopia?”
any disruptive or epic narrative.

“Antidesign/villain”
Utopia-dystopia Ex: Communism — USSR =(

What is interesting here is that somehow each one of these patterns has a completely different way to intend design, to develop it, and as attempted in a very simple way with examples completely different narrative universes.

This tool is supposed to be a design compass, helping designers to find their approach and plan development process in a more conscious, easy and effective way.

This year we introduced it quite early in the process, when the very first concepts/ideas started to be clear. We believe that this way it helped students to understand their particular path and better define specific approach to further project and storytelling development:

However the process was never fixed to this first map, some changes occurred later, so here is also an additional map where we tried to analyze final works of this year’s students:

You can find more tools and description of overall Ceramic Futures 2.0 learning environment in our post and digital publication.