Top Banner
Design Theory Communication & Multimedia Design Bas Leurs ([email protected]) March, 2014 Key concepts Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking /
43

Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Aug 17, 2014

Download

Design

Bas Leurs

 
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Design Theory

Communication &Multimedia Design

Bas Leurs ([email protected])March, 2014

Key conceptsLecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking /

Page 2: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

what we discussed last week...

Page 3: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Snow shovel case

Sensemaking Questioning

Prototyping Sketching

UNITiD

Studio space

Page 4: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Today’s programme

Modes of thinking

Design expertise

Key concepts

Design Thinking

Page 5: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

design thinking

Page 6: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts
Page 7: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Lucy Kimbell (2011)

Design Thinking as a cognitive style

Design Thinking as a business resource

Traditional design practice (“studio life”)

Business and organizational practice

Problem solving Innovation

Traditional design disciplines(e.g. architecture, product design)

Any context from healthcare, education to sustainability

Design schools MBA’s / Design schools

Purpose

Focus

Context

Training

Different discourses

Design Theory Innovation management

Page 8: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Business Design

Mindset MindsetMaintaining the

status quoChallenging the

status quo

Page 9: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Design is more than an agent of change, it is change...

While change is exciting for some, it is positively

terrifying for others.

Scott Doorley & Scott Witthoft (2012)

Page 10: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

BUSINESS DESIGN

Rationality, objectivity, reality is fixed and quantifiable

Subjective experience, reality is socially constructed

Analysis aimed at providing one "best" answer

Experimentation aimed at iterating toward a "better" answer

Planning Doing

Logic, numeric models Emotional insight, experiential models

Pursuit of control and stability, discomfort with uncertainty

Pursuit of novelty, dislike of status quo

Abstract or particular Iterative movement between abstract and particular

Liedtka & Ogilvie (2011)

Underlying assumptions

Method

Process

Decision drivers

Values

Levels of focus

Page 11: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Tim Brown (2008, 2009)

• Empathy• Integrative thinking• Optimism• Experimentalism• Collaboration

Page 12: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Tim Brown (2008, 2009)

Design Thinking

harvard business review • june 2008 page 3

observing these important times of transition,the innovation teams explored potential solu-tions through brainstorming and rapid proto-typing. (Prototypes of a service innovation willof course not be physical, but they must be tan-gible. Because pictures help us understandwhat is learned through prototyping, we oftenvideotape the performance of prototyped ser-vices, as we did at Kaiser.)

Prototyping doesn’t have to be complex andexpensive. In another health care project,IDEO helped a group of surgeons develop anew device for sinus surgery. As the surgeonsdescribed the ideal physical characteristics ofthe instrument, one of the designers grabbeda whiteboard marker, a film canister, and aclothespin and taped them together. “Do youmean like this?” he asked. With his rudimen-tary prototype in hand, the surgeons were ableto be much more precise about what theultimate design should accomplish.

Prototypes should command only as muchtime, effort, and investment as are needed togenerate useful feedback and evolve an idea.The more “finished” a prototype seems, theless likely its creators will be to pay attentionto and profit from feedback. The goal of proto-typing isn’t to finish. It is to learn about thestrengths and weaknesses of the idea and toidentify new directions that further proto-types might take.

The design that emerged for shift changeshad nurses passing on information in front of

the patient rather than at the nurses’ station.In only a week the team built a working proto-type that included new procedures and somesimple software with which nurses could callup previous shift-change notes and add newones. They could input patient informationthroughout a shift rather than scrambling atthe end to pass it on. The software collated thedata in a simple format customized for eachnurse at the start of a shift. The result was bothhigher-quality knowledge transfer and reducedprep time, permitting much earlier and better-informed contact with patients.

As Kaiser measured the impact of thischange over time, it learned that the mean in-terval between a nurse’s arrival and first inter-action with a patient had been more thanhalved, adding a huge amount of nursing timeacross the four hospitals. Perhaps just as im-portant was the effect on the quality of thenurses’ work experience. One nurse com-mented, “I’m an hour ahead, and I’ve onlybeen here 45 minutes.” Another said, “[This isthe] first time I’ve ever made it out of here atthe end of my shift.”

Thus did a group of nurses significantlyimprove their patients’ experience while alsoimproving their own job satisfaction and pro-ductivity. By applying a human-centered de-sign methodology, they were able to create arelatively small process innovation that pro-duced an outsize impact. The new shiftchanges are being rolled out across the Kaiser

A Design Thinker’s Personality Profile

Contrary to popular opinion, you don’t need weird shoes or a black turtleneck to be a de-sign thinker. Nor are design thinkers neces-sarily created only by design schools, even though most professionals have had some kind of design training. My experience is that many people outside professional design have a natural aptitude for design thinking, which the right development and experi-ences can unlock. Here, as a starting point, are some of the characteristics to look for in design thinkers:

Empathy.

They can imagine the world from multiple perspectives—those of col-leagues, clients, end users, and customers (current and prospective). By taking a “peo-ple first” approach, design thinkers can imag-

ine solutions that are inherently desirable and meet explicit or latent needs. Great de-sign thinkers observe the world in minute de-tail. They notice things that others do not and use their insights to inspire innovation.

Integrative thinking.

They not only rely on analytical processes (those that produce either/or choices) but also exhibit the ability to see all of the salient—and sometimes contradictory—aspects of a confounding problem and create novel solutions that go beyond and dramatically improve on existing alternatives. (See Roger Martin’s

The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking

.)

Optimism.

They assume that no matter how challenging the constraints of a given problem, at least one potential solution is

better than the existing alternatives.

Experimentalism.

Significant innovations don’t come from incremental tweaks. Design thinkers pose questions and explore con-straints in creative ways that proceed in en-tirely new directions.

Collaboration.

The increasing complexity of products, services, and experiences has re-placed the myth of the lone creative genius with the reality of the enthusiastic interdisci-plinary collaborator. The best design thinkers don’t simply work alongside other disciplines; many of them have significant experience in more than one. At IDEO we employ people who are engineers

and

marketers, anthropolo-gists

and

industrial designers, architects

and

psychologists.

Page 13: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Exploration ExploitationThe invention of business The administration of business

Roger Martin (2009)

Preferences

MysteriesDiscoveryLong-termHigh risk

Preferences

AlgorithmsEfficiency

Short-termMinimal risk

Inventor Manager (Accountant)

Designer

IntuitiveThinking

AnalyticalThinking

DesignThinking

Page 14: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Helen Walters (2011) http://helenwalters.com/2011/03/21/design-thinking-wont-save-you/

Page 15: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

modes of thinking

Page 16: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Nigel Cross (1990)

Abductive Thinking

Abduction is the logic of conjecture.

“vermoeden”“gissen”

Page 17: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Kees Dorst (2010)

132

To cut to the core of design thinking we build on the way fundamentally different kinds of UHDVRQLQJ�DUH�GHVFULEHG�LQ�IRUPDO�ORJLF��LQ�SDUWLFXODU�WKH�ZD\�5RR]HQEXUJ��������KDV�GHVFULEHG�WKH�ZRUN�RI�3HLUFH��:H�ZLOO�GHVFULEH�WKH�EDVLF�UHDVRQLQJ�SDWWHUQV�WKURXJK�FRPSDULQJ�GLIIHUHQW�‘settings’ of the knowns and unknowns in the equation:

WHAT + HOW leads to RESULT

(thing) (working principle) (observed)

In Deduction, we know the ‘what’, the ‘players’ in a situation we need to attend to, and we NQRZ�µKRZ¶�WKH\�ZLOO�RSHUDWH�WRJHWKHU��7KLV�DOORZV�XV�WR�VDIHO\�SUHGLFW�UHVXOWV��)RU�LQVWDQFH��LI�we know that there are stars in the sky, and we are aware of the natural laws that govern their PRYHPHQW��ZH�FDQ�SUHGLFW�ZKHUH�D�VWDU�ZLOO�EH�DW�D�FHUWDLQ�SRLQW�LQ�WLPH��

WHAT + HOW leads to ???

Alternatively, in Induction, we know the ‘what’ in the situation (stars), and we can observe UHVXOWV��SRVLWLRQ�FKDQJHV�DFURVV�WKH�VN\���%XW�ZH�GR�QRW�NQRZ�WKH�µKRZ¶��WKH�ODZV�WKDW�JRYHUQ�WKHVH�PRYHPHQWV��7KH�SURSRVLQJ�RI�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOHV¶�WKDW�FRXOG�H[SODLQ�WKH�REVHUYHG�EHKDY-LRU��DND�K\SRWKHVHV��LV�D�FUHDWLYH�DFW��

WHAT + ??? leads to RESULT

7KHVH�WZR�IRUPV�RI�DQDO\WLFDO�UHDVRQLQJ�SUHGLFW�DQG�H[SODLQ�SKHQRPHQD�WKDW�DUH�DOUHDG\�LQ�WKH�ZRUOG��:KDW�LI�ZH�ZDQW�WR�FUHDWH�YDOXDEOH�QHZ�WKLQJV�IRU�RWKHUV��OLNH�LQ�GHVLJQ�DQG�RWKHU�productive professions? The basic reasoning pattern then is Abduction:

WHAT + HOW leads to VALUE

(thing) (scenario) (aspired)

Abduction comes in two forms—what they have in common is that we actually know the value WKDW�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��,Q�WKH�¿UVW�IRUP�RI�Abduction-1, that is often associated with ‘prob-lem solving’, we also know the ‘how’, a ‘working principle’ and how that will help achieve the YDOXH�ZH�DLP�IRU��:KDW�LV�VWLOO�PLVVLQJ�LV�D�µZKDW¶��DQ�REMHFW��D�VHUYLFH��D�V\VWHP���VR�ZH�VHW�RXW�WR�VHDUFK�IRU�D�VROXWLRQ��

??? + HOW leads to VALUE

7KLV�LV�RIWHQ�ZKDW�GHVLJQHUV�DQG�HQJLQHHUV�GR²FUHDWH�DQ�REMHFW�WKDW�ZRUNV�ZLWKLQ�D�NQRZQ�ZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH��DQG�ZLWKLQ�D�VHW�VFHQDULR�RI�YDOXH�FUHDWLRQ��,Q�WKH�VHFRQG�IRUP�RI�Abduc-tion-2��ZH�21/<�NQRZ�WKH�HQG�YDOXH�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��

??? + ??? leads to VALUE

(thing) (scenario) (aspired)

6R�WKH�FKDOOHQJH�LV�WR�¿JXUH�RXW�µZKDW¶�WR�FUHDWH��ZKLOH�WKHUH�LV�QR�NQRZQ�RU�FKRVHQ�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶�WKDW�ZH�FDQ�WUXVW�WR�OHDG�WR�WKH�DVSLUHG�YDOXH��7KDW�PHDQV�ZH�KDYH�WR�FUHDWH�D�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶��WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�LQGXFWLRQ��DQG�D�µWKLQJ¶��REMHFW��VHUYLFH��V\VWHP²WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�$EGXFWLRQ����LQ�SDUDOOHO�

132

To cut to the core of design thinking we build on the way fundamentally different kinds of UHDVRQLQJ�DUH�GHVFULEHG�LQ�IRUPDO�ORJLF��LQ�SDUWLFXODU�WKH�ZD\�5RR]HQEXUJ��������KDV�GHVFULEHG�WKH�ZRUN�RI�3HLUFH��:H�ZLOO�GHVFULEH�WKH�EDVLF�UHDVRQLQJ�SDWWHUQV�WKURXJK�FRPSDULQJ�GLIIHUHQW�‘settings’ of the knowns and unknowns in the equation:

WHAT + HOW leads to RESULT

(thing) (working principle) (observed)

In Deduction, we know the ‘what’, the ‘players’ in a situation we need to attend to, and we NQRZ�µKRZ¶�WKH\�ZLOO�RSHUDWH�WRJHWKHU��7KLV�DOORZV�XV�WR�VDIHO\�SUHGLFW�UHVXOWV��)RU�LQVWDQFH��LI�we know that there are stars in the sky, and we are aware of the natural laws that govern their PRYHPHQW��ZH�FDQ�SUHGLFW�ZKHUH�D�VWDU�ZLOO�EH�DW�D�FHUWDLQ�SRLQW�LQ�WLPH��

WHAT + HOW leads to ???

Alternatively, in Induction, we know the ‘what’ in the situation (stars), and we can observe UHVXOWV��SRVLWLRQ�FKDQJHV�DFURVV�WKH�VN\���%XW�ZH�GR�QRW�NQRZ�WKH�µKRZ¶��WKH�ODZV�WKDW�JRYHUQ�WKHVH�PRYHPHQWV��7KH�SURSRVLQJ�RI�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOHV¶�WKDW�FRXOG�H[SODLQ�WKH�REVHUYHG�EHKDY-LRU��DND�K\SRWKHVHV��LV�D�FUHDWLYH�DFW��

WHAT + ??? leads to RESULT

7KHVH�WZR�IRUPV�RI�DQDO\WLFDO�UHDVRQLQJ�SUHGLFW�DQG�H[SODLQ�SKHQRPHQD�WKDW�DUH�DOUHDG\�LQ�WKH�ZRUOG��:KDW�LI�ZH�ZDQW�WR�FUHDWH�YDOXDEOH�QHZ�WKLQJV�IRU�RWKHUV��OLNH�LQ�GHVLJQ�DQG�RWKHU�productive professions? The basic reasoning pattern then is Abduction:

WHAT + HOW leads to VALUE

(thing) (scenario) (aspired)

Abduction comes in two forms—what they have in common is that we actually know the value WKDW�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��,Q�WKH�¿UVW�IRUP�RI�Abduction-1, that is often associated with ‘prob-lem solving’, we also know the ‘how’, a ‘working principle’ and how that will help achieve the YDOXH�ZH�DLP�IRU��:KDW�LV�VWLOO�PLVVLQJ�LV�D�µZKDW¶��DQ�REMHFW��D�VHUYLFH��D�V\VWHP���VR�ZH�VHW�RXW�WR�VHDUFK�IRU�D�VROXWLRQ��

??? + HOW leads to VALUE

7KLV�LV�RIWHQ�ZKDW�GHVLJQHUV�DQG�HQJLQHHUV�GR²FUHDWH�DQ�REMHFW�WKDW�ZRUNV�ZLWKLQ�D�NQRZQ�ZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH��DQG�ZLWKLQ�D�VHW�VFHQDULR�RI�YDOXH�FUHDWLRQ��,Q�WKH�VHFRQG�IRUP�RI�Abduc-tion-2��ZH�21/<�NQRZ�WKH�HQG�YDOXH�ZH�ZDQW�WR�DFKLHYH��

??? + ??? leads to VALUE

(thing) (scenario) (aspired)

6R�WKH�FKDOOHQJH�LV�WR�¿JXUH�RXW�µZKDW¶�WR�FUHDWH��ZKLOH�WKHUH�LV�QR�NQRZQ�RU�FKRVHQ�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶�WKDW�ZH�FDQ�WUXVW�WR�OHDG�WR�WKH�DVSLUHG�YDOXH��7KDW�PHDQV�ZH�KDYH�WR�FUHDWH�D�µZRUNLQJ�SULQFLSOH¶��WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�LQGXFWLRQ��DQG�D�µWKLQJ¶��REMHFW��VHUYLFH��V\VWHP²WKURXJK�D�ZD\�RI�WKLQNLQJ�WKDW�LV�FORVH�WR�$EGXFWLRQ����LQ�SDUDOOHO�

Abductive ThinkingAnd why design is such a complicated act

Page 18: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Deductive reasoning

• Deduction means determining the conclusion

• Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application

Inductive reasoning

• Induction means determining the rule

• Inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general.

Taking your best shot! Doing a best guess!

• Abduction means determining the precondition.

• Abduction has been described as the “logic of what might be,” (Martin, 2009)

• Abduction can be thought of as “the argument to the best explanation”. (Kolko, 2009)

Conclusion merely likely!

Abductive reasoning

Conclusion guaranteed!

design

natural sciencemathematics

Black Swan?All of the swans that all living beings have ever seen are whiteTherefore, all swans are white.

SyllogismAll men are mortalSocrates is a manTherefore, Socrates is mortal

Types of reasoning

See the paper of John Kolko (2009)

Aha Erlebnis“The abductive suggestion comes to us like a flash. It is an act of insight, although extremely fallible insight.” (Pierce, 1998)

Think of: Dr House, Sherlock Holmes

and other TV personas who solve

unsolvable puzzles.

Page 19: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

A B C

B

Therefore, we are absolutely certain that all the marbles in the bag are red (because all the marbles are from bucket B)

There are three buckets A, B and C. We can see and we know that allthe marbles in bucket B are red.

It is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B in the bag (but we cannot see what’s in the bag).

All the marbles from bucket B are red.

Rule

The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.

Case

The marbles in the bag are red.

Result

conclusion!

Deductive reasoning: conclusion guaranteed!Deduction means determining the conclusion

Deductive reasoning moves from the general rule to the specific application

Page 20: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

A B C

B

When we open bag, we see that the marbles are red.

So, all the marbles in bucket B are red (although this might not be true if there is blue marble in bucket B, but we cannot see if that is the case)

It is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B in the bag.

All the marbles from bucket B are red.

Rule

The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.

Case

The marbles in the bag are red.

Result

Inductive reasoning: conclusion merely likely!Induction means determining the rule

Inductive reasoning moves from the specific to the general.

Page 21: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

A B C

B

We have a bag, when we open it, we see that the marbles are red.

There are three buckets A, B and C. We see and we know that all the marbles in bucket B are red.

So, it is the case that someone has put some marbles from bucket B into the bag.

All the marbles from bucket B are red.

Rule

The marbles in the bag are from bucket B.

Case

The marbles in the bag are red.

Result

Abductive reasoning: taking your best shot! / best guess!Abduction means determining the precondition.

Abduction has been described as the “logic of what might be,” (Martin)Abduction can be thought of as the argument to the best explanation. (Kolko)

Page 22: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Henry Mintzberg & Frances Westley (2001)

“Thinking first” “Seeing first” “Doing first”

Decision making approaches

•Science•planning / programming•Verbal•Facts

•Art•Visioning / imagining•Visual•Ideas

•Craft•Venturing / learning•Visceral•Experiences

Works best when:

• The issue is clear

• The data is reliable

• The context is structured

Works best when:

• Many elements have to be combined into creative solutions

• Commitment to those solutions is key

• Communication across boundaries is essential

Works best when:

• Situation is novel and confusing

• Complicated specification would get in the way

• A few simple relationship rules can help people move forward

established

production processes

new product development

disruptive technologies

Page 23: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Henry Mintzberg & Frances Westley (2001)

“Thinking first” “Seeing first” “Doing first”

Decision making approaches

•Science•planning / programming•Verbal•Facts

•Art•Visioning / imagining•Visual•Ideas

•Craft•venturing / learning•Visceral•Experiences

Works best when:

• The issue is clear

• The data is reliable

• The context is structured

Works best when:

• Many elements have to be combined into creative solutions

• Commitment to thos solutions is key

• Communication accros boundaries is essential

Works best when:

• Situation is novel and confusing

• Complicated specification would get in the way

• A few simple relationship rules can help people move forward

established production processes

new product development disruptive technologies

Design

Page 24: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

design expertise

Page 25: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Unselfconscious culture Selfconscious cultureForm-making is learned informally, through

imitation and correction.Form-making is taught academically,

according to explicit rules.

Christopher Alexander (1964)

Page 26: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Unselfconscious culture Selfconscious culture

Form-making is learned informally, through imitation and correction.

Division of labour is limited, specialization of any sort is rare (there are no architects).

Each man builds his own house.

The technology of communication is underdeveloped (no written records or architectural plans, “direct design”).

Form-making is taught academically, according to explicit rules.

Division of labour is abundant, there are many specializations (architects, bricklayers, carpenters)

Each man buys or rents his own house.

The technology of communication is well developed (many written records, “indirect design”).

Christopher Alexander (1964)

Page 27: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Nigel Cross (1990)

Design ability

designers...

• produce novel, unexpected solutions

• tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information

• apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems

• use drawings and other modelling media as means of problem solving.

• resolve ill-defined problems

• adopt solution-focussing strategies

• employ abductive/productive/appositional thinking

• use non-verbal, graphic/spatial modelling media.

The nature and nurture of design ability Nigel Cross Design Discipline, Faculty of Technology, The Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7

6AA, UK

Understanding the nature of design ability can better enable design educators to nurture its development

in their students. Such understanding has been promoted by a wide variety of studies of design activity

and designer behaviour. From a review of these studies, design ability is summarised as comprising

resolving ill-defined problems, adopting solution-focussed cognitive strategies, employing abductive or

appositional thinking and using non-verbal modelling media. These abilities are highly developed in

skilled designers, but are also possessed in some degree by everyone. A case is therefore made for design

ability as a fundamental form of human intelligence. The nurture of this ability through design education

is discussed, with particular reference to the problem of providing design education through the

distance-learning media of the Open University. Keywords: design education, design ability I hope that the title of this paper makes clear that it really

has two parts. The first is concerned with the nature of

design ability - the particular ways of thinking and

behaving that designers, and all of us, adopt in tackling

certain kinds of problems in certain kinds of ways. The

second part is concerned with the nurture of design

ability - that is, with the development of that ability

through design education, and in particular with the

attempts made at the Open University to nurture design

ability through distance-learning media. My view is that through better understanding the

nature of design ability, design educators may be better

able to nurture it. I therefore see these two - nature and

nurture - as complementary interests, and I do not

intend to venture into those corners of psychology where

fights go on over nature vs nurture in the context of

general intelligence. However, I shall try to make a claim This paper is based on the author's Inaugural Lecture as

Professor of Design Studies, given 31 May 1989 at the Open

University.

that design ability is, in fact, one of the several forms or

fundamental aspects of human intelligence. The appellation 'designer' has been helping to sell

products for some time now. I think it started with

'designer jeans' - trousdrs which, though derived from

workmen's garments, were clearly not meant for work-

ing in. A wide range of 'designer' products then

appeared, from designer cars to designer pens. However,

the appellation has now become virtually a term of abuse

- ranging from the 'designer stubble' seen on the faces of

fashion victims to the 'designer socialism' seen in some

sections of the British Labour Party. I even saw a

magazine article about 'designer diseases' such as the

'Stendahl syndrome' which is supposed to afflict those

overcome by the beauty of Florence. 'Designer' products

are now recognizable by their dominance of form over

function. 'Designer' therefore currently seems to mean some-

thing trendy, fashionable and insubstantial. But fortu-

nately the idea that good design can actually be a selling

Vol 11 No 3 July 1 9 9 0 0142-694X/90/03127-14/$3.00 © 1990 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

127

Page 28: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Experts

NovicesNigel Cross (2004)

Experts vs Novices

deductive reasoning‘depth-first’ approach

to problem solving

‘generative’ reasoningbreadth-first approach

to problem solving

Experts have been exposed to a large number of examples of the problems and solutions

Experts are able to store and access information in larger cognitive ‘chunks’ than novices can, and to recognise underlying principles, rather than focussing on the surface features of problems

Expert designers move rapidly to early solution conjectures, and use these conjectures as a way of exploring and defining problem-and- solution together.

Page 29: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Bryan Lawson (2004)

Gambits

Experts have studied a substantial body of precedent in order to have developed schemata that enable them to recognise underlying structures in design situations that allow them to employ and adapt gambits.

tricks to solve

recognisable problems

Chess masters rarely analyse a board situation, rather they recognised it.

Page 30: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Herbert Dreyfus (2003), Kees Dorst and Isabelle Reymen (2004)

Expertise levels

Novice ... will follow strict rules to deal with the problem

Advanced beginner ... is sensitive to exceptions to the ‘hard’ rules of the novice.

Competent ... selects the elements in a situation that are relevant, and chooses a plan to achieve the goals.

Proficient ... immediately sees the most important issues and appropriate plan, and then reasons out what to do.

Expert ... responds to specific situation intuitively, and performs the appropriate action, straightaway.

Master ... sees the standard ways of working that experienced professionals use not as natural but as something they rely on. A master displays a deeper involvement into the professional field as a whole

Visionary ... consciously strives to extend the domain in which he/she works. The world discloser develops new ways things could be, defines the issues, opens new worlds and creates new domains.

Rule based thinking

Situation based thinking

Strategy based thinking

Page 31: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Bachelor levelSkills

novice

advancedbeginner

competent

expert

visionary

(Lawson & Dorst, 2009)

master

Expertise levels

Rule based thinking

Situation based thinking

Strategy based thinking

Page 32: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

10,000 hour rule

Page 33: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Ericsson (2001)

Expertise levels

Many thousands of hours of deliberate practice and training are necessary to reach the highest levels of performance.

P1: JzG052184097Xc38 CB1040B/Ericsson 0 521 84087 X February 28, 2006 6:17

694 the cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance

Figure 38.4. Estimated amount of time for solitary practice as a function of agefor the middle-aged professional violinists (triangles), the best expert violinists(squares), the good expert violinists (empty circles), the least accomplished expertviolinists (filled circles), and amateur pianists (diamonds). (From “The role ofdeliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance,” by K. A. Ericsson,R. Th. Krampe, and C. Tesch-Romer, 1993 , Psychological Review, 100(3), p. 379and p. 384 . Copyright 1993 by American Psychological Association. Adaptedwith permission.)

musicians had spent over 10,000 hours prac-ticing, which averages 2 ,500 and 5 ,000 hoursmore than two less-accomplished groups ofmusicians at the same academy, respectively(Ericsson et al., 1993). In comparison to ama-teur pianists of the same age (Krampe &Ericsson, 1996), the best musicians from theacademy and the professionals had practiced8,000 more hours.

The core assumption of deliberate prac-tice (Ericsson, 1996, 2002 , 2004 ; Ericssonet al., 1993) is that expert performanceis acquired gradually and that effectiveimprovement of performance requires theopportunity to find suitable training tasksthat the performer can master sequentially –typically the design of training tasks andmonitoring of the attained performance isdone by a teacher or a coach. Deliberatepractice presents performers with tasks thatare initially outside their current realm ofreliable performance, yet can be masteredwithin hours of practice by concentratingon critical aspects and by gradually refiningperformance through repetitions after feed-

back. Hence, the requirement for concentra-tion sets deliberate practice apart from bothmindless, routine performance and playfulengagement, as the latter two types of activ-ities would, if anything, merely strengthenthe current mediating cognitive mechanismsrather than modify them to allow increasesin the level of performance. Research iscurrently reevaluating claims that someindividuals can improve their level of per-formance without concentration and delib-erate practice. Even the well-known fact thatmore “talented” children improve faster inthe beginning of their music developmentappears to be in large part due to the fact thatthey spend more time in deliberate prac-tice each week (Sloboda, Davidson, Howe& Moore, 1996). In a recent study of singersGrape, Sandgren, Hansson, Ericsson, andTheorell (2003) revealed reliable differencesof skill in the level of physiological and psy-chological indicators of concentration andeffort during a singing lesson. Whereas theamateur singers experienced the lesson asself-actualization and an enjoyable release

Page 34: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

key concepts of design theory

Page 35: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

DESIGN = . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 36: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Clarity on Outcomes

If public managers have a clear understanding of an organization’soutcomes, they are better equipped to find ways to deliver thoseoutcomes to the public.

Outcomes often loom large in the public debate when a newpublic service is being established or an existing one expanded,such as building new hospitals, or creating an after-school program

Zeroing In on Outcomes 21

Traditional Performance Measures

OutputsProcesses(Activities)

Inputs

Resources used to deliver the products and services of a program or organization

Series of actions or operations conducted to achieve an end goal

The final products, goods or services produced by a program or organization

Outcomes

Initial Intermediate Long-term

The impacts, benefits or consequences for stakeholders resulting from the outputs ofa program or organization

Public Service Value Measures Outcome

FIGURE 2.1

Inputs, Processes and Outputs versus Outcomes

term outcomes. However, if we did, we would find that manyof the outcomes we reference are in the short-term or inter-mediate-term category, since we are focusing on particularorganizations and ways to help improve their specific per-formance. An interesting additional aspect of this is that afocus on long-term outcomes would probably need to accountfor a group of organizations or an entire sector to be able toencompass all of the factors that contribute to achieving anend outcome.

DESIGN = CHANGE

Design is more than just a product (output), it is about the change (effect) it initiates

Page 37: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

transformation function

DESIGN = FUTURE ORIENTED

Design is about how things ought to be, and making it happen.

state 1 process state 2

initial state future state

Page 38: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

DESIGN = ENVISIONING POSSIBILITIES

Making stuff... envisioning posibilities and possible futures through sketching, prototyping, enacting, storytelling etc...

Page 39: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

l

earning

designing

taking an action that transforms the internal (knowledge, beliefs)

doing an interventionthat transforms the

external (world, context)

DESIGN = LEARNING PROCESS

Page 40: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

DESIGN = SENSEMAKING

Understanding reality in a specific way, identifying patterns that have been overlooked by others

Page 41: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

DESIGN = ABOUT FIT

ProductProblem User

Business

fitFITfitFIT

fitFIT

Coordinating the alignment of discourses; resolving conflicts of interest

Page 42: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

DESIGN = TO IMPROVE THE HUMAN CONDITION

Product

Problem User

Business

fitFIT

fitFITfitFIT

Page 43: Design theory - Lecture 04: Design Expertise / Design Thinking / Key concepts

Salut!