Design-thinking-notes-on-its-nature-and-use-owen desthink 071 PDF

Preview

Summary

Design Thinking reading...

Description

Reprint Design Research Society ISSN 1752-8445

www.designresearchsociety.org

Charles Owen Design Thinking: Notes on its Nature and Use Design Research Quarterly Vol. 2, N0. 1, January, 2007, pp. 16-27

T and its contents are copyright (c) 2007 by the Design Research Society. We publish under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs 2.5 License. You are free to circulate and use this reprint provided thatyou do not modif y it or use it for commercial purposes. If you quote or use the contents apart from this complete reprint, you must attribute the article with a proper reference citation. Suggested citation: Owen, Charles. 2007. “Design Thinking: Notes on ins nature and Use”. Design Research Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 16-27.

Design Thinking: Notes on Its Nature and Use Charles Owen Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Illinois Institute of Technology Abstract Probl ems in duced by continuing population growth and its pressure on resources an d environment have reached a stage where serious concern must be given to the processes of decision making being used by governmental and institutional leaders. Science thinking is frequently unheard or unheeded and design thinking is not engaged at all. Design thinkin g, as a complement to science thinkin g, embodies a wide range of creative characteristics as well as a number of other special qualities of distinct value to decision makers. In advisory ro les, properly prepared design professionals could make substantial contributions to a process now dominated by political and economic views. This paper examines the nature of design thinking as i t differs from other ways of thinking. A model for comparing fields is introduced and a number of characteristics o f creative individuals in general an d designers in particu lar are presented Preparin g designers for participation in polic y planning will be a challenge for desi gn education. Meetin g the challenge wi ll require new un derstan ding, an extended range of design tools, and concerted support from the design professions to demonstrate the value of design thinking to decision making at the highest levels.

T his paper, was adapted f rom Design think ing. What it is. Why it is diff erent. Where it has val ue., a keynote speech presened at: the International Conference on Design Research and Education f or the Future, conducted in conjunction with: the Gwangju Design Biennale 2005, Light into Life Sponsored by: ICSID; ICOGRADA; IFI; and, from the Rep ublic of Korea: Government Information Ag ency; Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Ministry of National Defense; Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs; Ministr y of Culture and Tourism; Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy ; Ministr y of Inf ormation and Communication; Ministry of Construction and T ransportation; Korea Customs Service; The Korean Culture and Arts Foundation; Korea Institute of Design Promotions; Korea Foundation of Design Associations; and the Korea Society of Design Studies. 18 October - 1 November, 2005 Charles Owen Charles L. Owen is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Design,one of the six academic units of the Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT) in Chicago. There, Mr. Owen conducts research an d teaches semiannually in the MDes, MDM and PhD Desi gn grad uate programs. He joined the IITf aculty in 1965 following studies for degrees in chemistry and product design, additional studies in city planning and computer science, andf our years as an officer in the U.S. Navy. Since then, he has worked in the fields of product design, design planning, computer-supp orted design, design methodology and design theory—directing the Product Designp rogram for 20 years, founding and di-

Introduction The handiwork of humankind is finall y be ginnin g to impress itself on t he global environment and on us, its inhabitants. This should inspire us as design professionals to reconsider wh at we do, who our clients are , and where we can best offer our expertise. In particular, the decision processes of high-level decision makers are in need of serious overhaul. It is n ews to n o one th at curr ent rat es of resour ce con sumption cannot keep up with popu lation growth as it exists. World population is virtually certain by 205 0 to increase by half again from its present 6.46 billion—with all that means for our dwindling resources. Coupled with that, it is at last clear that global warming is fact, and its growing control over Earth’s climate and weather systems will unpredictably complicate problems already made serious by population pressures. The road ahead indeed seems dark, but there is hope. A profusion of new technologies is emer ging, many with potential to alleviate or even el iminate th e probl ems induced by popul ation growth. As Jared Diamond points

recting the Design Processes Laboratory for 14 years, publishing theDesi gn Processes Newsletterr for 10 years, and teaching, conducting research and consulting. He has acted as adviso r ot seve ral u niversities in ht e U.S. and ab road and has se rved o r now serves on the advisory boards of the journals: Visi ble Language (U.S.), Design Recherche (France ), Desig n Studies (UK), ARCOS (Brazil), Asia Design Journal ( Korea), Journal of Design Excellence (Malaysia) and the Wiley International book series on design. Professor Owen has written a number of computer p rograms for business and institutional app lications, has published widely (over 125 articles, papers, books and book chap ters), has served on international juries, and has been an invited lecturer at over 200 institutions in the U.S. and ab road . Among many awards his students have won are two Grand Prizes in th e Japan Design Foundation’s International Design Competition, ht e Grand Prize in Sony Corporation’s International Design Vision Competition, and the 1991 Grand Award in the Environmental Technology category of Popular Science Magazine’s ‘The Year’s 100 Greatest Achievements in Science and Technology’. In 1990, he was the recipient of the American Center for Design’s Education Award for his contributions to design history, theory andpractice. In 1995 he was honored at IIT with recognition as Distinguished Professor of Design. In 1997, he was elected Honorary Member of the Japanese Society for the Science of Design, the first in its 44year history. In 1999 the Institute of Desig n honored his work with the establishment of an endowed Chair in his name, and he was named one of 36 ‘IIT People of the Millennium’ by the university for his contributions. ContinuedQ

Desig n Research Quarterly 1:2 Dec. 2006

– 16 –

www.designresearchsociety.org

Design T hin king: Notes on Its Nature and Use. cont.

Analysis

Discovery

Invention G Oriented toward Synthesis

Creative Domain

‘Design thinking is in many ways the obverse of scientific thinking.’ Science ad visors h ave l ong b een includ ed among highl evel g overnmental advisory staff s. How their advice is val ued, however, h as varied wit h the problem context, and political interests have almost always trumped scientific advice. More than ever before, scientific advice re quires serious consideration. A nd anot her kind of thinking deserves equal attention. Design thinking is in many ways the obverse of scientific thinking. Where the scientist sif ts f acts to discover patterns and insights, th e d esigner invents new patterns and concepts to address facts and possibilities. In a world with growing pro blems th at desperate ly nee d understanding and insight, there is also great need for ideas that can b lend that understanding and insight in creative new solutions. Implicit in this notion is the belief that design thinking can make special, valuable contributions to decision making . In this paper, I will explore the nature of that kind of thinking, its value, and the differences between design thinking and other ways of thinking.

Invention

Discovery G Oriented toward Analysis

Finders

u sually become scientists or sch olars and are responsible for much of our prog ress in understanding ourselves and our surround ings. Those wh o work in the second way are ‘makers’, equally creative, but in a different way. They demonstrate their cre-

Makers

out , techno logically comp lex societies autocatalyze techno l og ical g rowth , and the resulting d evel opment accelerates over time. We are, in effect, unintentionall y creating the h ighl y soph isticated tools th at may prevent th e d estruction initiated with earlier created tools. Key to the use or misuse of these technologies are the decision processes employed by those in power. Histor y h as shown that political decisions do not always f avor the b est interests of all, and when critical factors include inf ormation not easily understood by pol itical d ecision mak ers, that information may be disregarded or not even considere d. My argument in recent papers2 is t hat th e stakes are now too high for critical information to be unheard or ignored.

Synthesis

Creative Domain

Figure 1 Two-domain Creativity Model ativity th rough invention. Makers are driven to synth esize what they know in new constructions, arrangements, patt erns, compositions and concepts that bring tangible, fresh expressions of what can be. They become architects, engin eers, artists—designers —and are responsible for t he built environment in which we live a nd wor k. Design Thinking vs Other Kinds of Thinking Given the fundamental process differences between how finders and makers think and work , it is reasonable to

Finders, Makers and Applied Creativity A sensitive observer mig ht notice an interesting thing about creative people. They tend to work in two differen t ways ( Figure 1). Those who work in the first way, might best be called ‘finders’. They exercise their creativity through discover y. Finders are driven to understand, to find explanations for phenomena not well understood. In professional lif e, they

Context: Gsymbolic vs real Process: Ganalytic vs synthetic

Symbolic Analytic Symbolic

Synthetic S ymbolic

Synthetic

Analytic

Analytic Real

Synthetic Real Real

Figure 2 Map of Fields: Context and Process Differentiate

ContinuedQ

Desig n Research Quarterly 1:2 Dec. 2006

– 17 –

www.designresearchsociety.org

Design Thinking: Notes on Its Nature and Use. cont.

believe that other factors might similarly reveal di fferences a mong professional fi elds and, therefore, help to defi ne the n ature of design thinking. One such factor is the content with which a field works. A conceptual ‘map’ can be drawn t o use both content and process factors (Figure 2). Two axes def ine the map. Separating the map into lef t a nd right halves is an Analytic/Synthetic axis that classifies fields by process—the way they work. Fields on the left side of the axis are more concerned with ‘fi nding’ or discovering; fields on the right with ‘making ’ and inventing. A Symb olic/Real axis divid es th e map into h al ves verticall y, according to content or realm of activity. Fields in the upper half of the map are more concerned with the abstract, symbolic world and the institutions, policies and language t ools that enable peop le to manipulate information, comm unicate and live together. Fields in the lower half are concerned with the real world and the artif acts and systems necessary for managing the physical environment. A sampling of fields illustrates how the map diff erent iates (Figure 3). The fi ve chosen are hig hly recognizable

Content: G symbolic vs real Process: G analytic vs synthetic

its analy ses. There are elements of science, however, that are synthetic in process (as, for example, in materials science or organic chemistr y), and science can d eal directly with unab stracted, real content, particul arly in the natural sciences. Law, as a generalized field, is located higher on the map, concerned extensively with the symbolic content of institutions, policies and social relationships. It is also positioned more to the right, as a signifi cant portion of its disciplines are co ncerned with the creation of laws a nd the ins truments of social contract. Medicine, in contrast, is sharpl y lower on th e content axis, vitally concerne d with the real p roblems of human health. On the process scale, it is strongly analytic; diagnostic processes are a primary focus of medicine. Art is high on the content axis, strongly symbolic, and almost evenly divided on the process scale, still more sy nthetic than analy tic, but very much involved with interpretation of the human condition. Design in this mappin g is highly synt hetic and strongly concerned with rea l world subject matter. Because disci-

Mechanical Engineering

Symbolic

Analytic Symbolic

Analytic

Synthetic Sy mb olic Laww Science A rt

Decomposition: Gseparated disciplines with sharpened specialization

Synthetic

Medicin Me M diicine Design Analytic Real

Symbolic

Composition: Gmerged discipline with leveled generalization

Synthetic Real Real

Analytic Symbolicc

Analytic

Synthetic Symbolic

Engine neering Science Sc Mechanical Synthetic Engineering Engineeri ring Desig s ign

Analytic Real

Sy Synthetic Real Real

Figure 3 Di fferences: Discrimination amon gFields

Figure 4 Hierarchy: Fields Decompose to

with well defi ned disciplines and well understood differ- plines of design deal with communications and symbolism, e nces. Every field has component elements in each of the d esig n h as a symbolic component, and b ecause d esign four quadrants. What distinguishes one field from another requires analysis to perform synthesis, there is an analyti s the degree to which a field positions its ‘center of gravity’ ic component—but design is a field relatively specialized, away from the center into the quadrants and the direction and specialized nearly oppositely to science. t hat positioning takes. In Figure 3, fields close to the center For almost any field, a case can be made for movemen t a re more ‘generalized’ with respect to the axes; fields away to the left or right based on the variety of detailed interfrom the center are more ‘specialized’. ests the field subsumes. Positioning is very subjective, but Science is f arthest to the left as a field that is heavily ana- absolute positioning is not wh at is important in th is kind lytic in its use of process. Its content is also more symboli c th an real in that subject matter is usually abstracted in ContinuedQ

Desig n Research Quarterly 1:2 Dec. 2006

– 18 –

www.desig nresearchsociety.org

D esign Think ing: Notes on Its Nature and Use. cont.

e Together, they well cover areas of decision making

Analytic

Law Science

Artrtt

Medicine iccine e

Analytic Real

Synthetic

Design e Synthetic Real

knowledge using process

Figure 6 Foundations: Knowledge Building; Knowledge Using complementation lies in deeply rooted differences in ways of thinking. To understand the dif f erences, it is useful to look at how knowledg e is built and used in afield. Foundations In any field, knowledge is generated and accumulated through action: the model is doing somet h ing and evaluating the results. In Figure 6, the process is shown as a cycle in which knowledge is used to produce works, and

The dual nature of knowledge building and using G Knowledge is generated by inquiry and application G Realms of theory and practice are seldom balanced in a field

Analytic Synthetic Knowledge y uir gm inq radi pa

Proposal

ge led g w n o si kn u

Discovery

Real

Figure 5 Differences: Design and Science are Complementary

Works

Channel

cip les

e Design: synthetic/real

paradigm

Knowledge

G Judging results: evaluating works to build knowledge

Finding

n s ea t io M ca m pli ig d ge ap r a les ed pa cip l g in ow in Pr kn us

e Science: analytic/symbolic

Synthetic Symbolic

Channel

Pr in

Analytic Symbolic

G Doing Something: using knowledge to create works

knowledge building process

ur es

Symbolic

Knowledge is generated and accumulated through action

ge led ng ow ldi kn bui es ur

Design and science are strongly complementary

ed the discipline’s focus of interest between sy mbolic and functional goals. A field’s choice of subject matter and procedure distinguishes it from others. Design, as a field, clearly occupies a special place on the map, more complementary to science than any other field in that, coupled with science, it fills out the space most completely (Figure 5). The source of the

kn bu owl ild ed M in ge ea g s

of mapping. Relative positioning is. It provides a means for comparing multi-field relationships with regard to the two important dimensions of content and process. Fields, of course, are just the tops of hierarchies, and the hierarchical nature of their subject matter opens a door to the examination of relationships among elements at finer levels of detail (Figure 4). Mechanical engineering, a subject at the discipline level, is nicely centered between the analy tic and synthetic domains, but that is only true when it is considered as a whole. En gineering science, one o f its sub-disciplines, would be located much farther to the left; engineering design would be on the right. Decomposing mat hematics pro duces, among other su bspecia lties, applied mathematics, which is concerned more generally with the real domain than is mathematics, the p arent discipline. The complexity of most fields affords opportunities for such levelin g and sharpenin g through hierarchical examination. Composition is a level ing process, lessening distinctions and movin g more incl usive concepts, such as fields, toward the center of the map; decomposit ion is a sharpening process, revealing differences and dispersing more tightly defined disciplines and sub-disciplines into the quadrants. Movements of f ields and disciplines through time and culture can also be tracked. Through much of the last two thousand years, for example, western sculptors rendered realistic subj ects for their clients, commemorating individuals and events. Since the turn of the last century, cultural trends in th e arts h ave moved scul pture up and to the left on the map. Architecture in this century has moved up and down on the map as various movements have shift-

Work

Invention Making

Figure 7 Foundations: Paradigms of Inquiry and Application ContinuedQ

Desig n Research Quarterly 1:2 Dec. 2006

– 19 –

www.designresearchsociety.org

D esign Think ing: Notes on Its Nature and Use. cont.

kn bu o w ild led in ge M g ea

Pr in

n io at m lic ig

p ad les ap p ar cip g e in d Pr owlseing kn u

cip les

su

res

ea M

ge led g ow ldin s kn bui re su

works are evaluated to build know ledge. Knowledge using the processes of knowledge using and building. Measures a nd knowledg e b uild ing are both structured processes con- are convenient ly conceptualized as scales. Because th ey t roll ed by ch annels that contain and d irect t...