Design: Problem vs Opportunity

Design as problem solving: Thinking 1.0

I used to associate design as a problem solving exercise. It seemed to be
an organized process between problem framing and problem solving. This kind of an approach highly resonated with the way Herbert Simon defined design. Simon always maintained that Design and creativity were
special forms of problem solving (Hatchuel). Since then, after going through the course, I came up with a new model for design.

First of all, Design is not a mere process or a scientific method, it is a self-contained discipline or practice which draws a lot of inspiration from other fields of humanities and sciences and at the same time is omnipresent in all other fields.

A scientist who is not really addressed as a professional designer is still designing experiments at some level. A city planner is constantly designing roads, parks and neighborhoods. Everybody designs sometimes, nobody designs always. Design is not the monopoly of those who call themselves designers. (Rittel)

Even though design is omnipresent in some form or the other in a lot of professions, not everything is design. Schon mentioned that
Random or purposeless behavior or processes so proceduralized (like ringing up items on a cash register) cannot be qualified as design because of lack of deliberate intervention (Schoen). Hence it can be inferred that Design requires some kind of deliberate intervention (Schoen) and intent
which is somehow achieved through reflective practice.

Design as problem solving: Thinking 2.0

Design is a lot about identification. This identification part can be seen as a slider between Problem and Opportunity. Problem side represents horizontal innovation or fixing things, such as making a version 2.0 of a 1.0, whereas Opportunity side represents vertical innovation, which is about creating new areas of business, speculative design and technological disruption. Almost every project can be identified somewhere on this spectrum.

Similarly, design can be seen as identification process in other sub-practices,
such as deciding between investigation of the space, or solving the space, if the project is of universal nature (absolute truth) or ultimate particular (connections, composition and form) (Nelson and Stolterman).

What is 3.0?

Stay tuned for that.

References

Nelson, Harold G and Erik Stolterman. “The Ultimate Particular .” Nelson, Harold G and Erik Stolterman. The Design Way. Cambridge: The MIT Press,
2012. 27–40.

Rittel, Horst WJ. “The Reasoning of Designers.” Arbeitspapier zum
International congress on Planning and Design theory (1987): 1–9.

Schoen, Donald. “The Design Process.” Howard, VA. Varieties of Thinking:
Essays from Harvard’s Philosophy of Education Research Center. Ed. VA
Howard. New York: Routledge , 1990. 110–141.

To Be Continued…