Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
alexmilton.co.uk
…
10 pages
1 file
This paper aims to unfold the theory and practice of design consciousness, as both an individual 'state' and by group process. The description of DesignQuest is the development of a facilitation method whereby groups of designers can come together to refresh their perspectives on design and deepen their creative consciousness. The DesignQuest process has been continuously developed over a seven year period -firstly by the Design Transformation Group (DTG), and latterly by the nowherefoundation.
(Re) searching the Digital Bauhaus, 2009
In this essay I explore a view of design that emphasizes the multiplicity of relationships between designer, the community for whom the design is intended and the development of the design over time. Rather than focus on the design as produced, attention here is given to the network of design relationships that makes design possible and to how we enter into those relationships.
The latest buzz phrase to enter the world of design research is “Design Thinking”. But is this anything new and does it really have any practical or theoretical relevance to the design world? Many sceptics believe the term has more to do with business strategy and little to do with the complex process of designing products, services and systems. Moreover, many view the term as misleading and a cheap attempt to piggyback the world of business management onto design. This paper seeks to ask is design thinking anything new? Several authors have explicitly or implicitly articulated the term “Design Thinking” before, such as Peter Rowe’s seminal book “Design Thinking” [1] first published in 1987 and Herbert Simon’s “The Sciences of the Artificial” [2] first published in 1969. In Tim Brown’s “Change by Design” [3], design thinking is thought of as a system of three overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps namely inspiration – the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation – the process of generating, developing and testing ideas; and implementation – the path that leads from the design studio, lab and factory to the market. This paper seeks to examine and critically analyse the tenets of this new design thinking manifesto set against three case studies of modern design practice. As such, the paper will compare design thinking theory with the reality of design in practice.
Francis Bacon said “Knowledge is power”, schools and universities give people access to this knowledge and workplaces require people to put this knowledge into practise as quick as possible. However, the rate of change that Western Society faces today presents us with increasingly complex challenges. Dealing with these kinds of challenges requires a different kind of knowledge, a different way of knowing, and even a way of not-knowing. This is a challenge in a culture where saying “I don’t know” can feel shameful. So more than just a new way of thinking, we need a new approach that involves different ways of seeing, feeling, doing and being that can help people suspend knowing while they co-create together. This paper is about Design Thinking and other complementary Action Methods and how these strategies are being used to navigate the unknown in big, complex, inter-related social problems. This paper suggests that teaching these strategies in schools is not only the best way of teaching divergent thinking and co-creation to pupils, but that this is the way of preparing children for problem solving in an increasingly complex future. Design Thinking is not necessarily about designing things. However, design — by it’s very nature — is about creating something new. Consequently, this requires navigating something previously not-known. Traditional design education is recognised for training divergent thinkers but more importantly, design methodologies develop flexibility in thinking styles and an open way of being, so that learners have the experience of repeatedly shifting from convergent thinking, to divergent thinking and back again. Action Methods such as role play and other methods of concretisation of concepts through physicality have a history of developing spontaneity in participants. In action, traditional thinking such as analysis, is suspended while participants explore feelings and being in the present. These action methods are already being used in large Design Thinking projects across the world by companies such as IDEO, who are leaders in Service Design. In these kinds of projects solutions are co-created with the users and the necessity for empathy towards alternative viewpoints make divergent thinking a must. In summary, this paper will discuss the strategies used in Design Thinking and in Action Methods and how these strategies for thinking, not-thinking, feeling, doing and being could be taught in the classroom to empower our future problem solvers with the knowledge and behaviours needed to navigate ALL our unknown futures.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 2013
This paper takes a critical look at the design thinking discourse, one that has different meanings depending on its context. Within the managerial realm, design thinking has been described as the best way to be creative and innovate, while within the design realm, design thinking may be partly ignored and taken for granted, despite a long history of academic development and debate. In the design area, we find five different discourses of 'designerly thinking', or ways to describe what designers do in practice, that have distinctly different epistemological roots. These different discourses do not stand in competition with each other but could be developed in parallel. We also observe that the management discourse has three distinct origins, but in general has a more superficial and popular character and is less academically anchored than the designerly one. Also, the management design thinking discourse seldom refers to designerly thinking and thereby hinders cumulative knowledge construction. We suggest further research to link the discourses.
As the world is undergoing a shift into an emerging systemic and networked reality, design education too has to adapt its focus to meet this change. This paper outlines a possible way of doing this by introducing Design Shamanism and three key parameters for understanding and applying the Design Shamanic mindset. With no intention of producing a fully-fledged definition of Design Shamanism in a foundational design theoretical sense, the paper does offer a fruitful metaphor for reflection as well as practice. By understanding the emerging systemic reality and the transformation of end users into collectively intelligent codesigners, the Design Shaman can embrace irrationality and actively shape the future.
Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal—Annual Review
Designers may believe they influence the outcome of a design including important environmental issues and sustainability to varying degrees as their thought process moves from rough concepts towards a final outcome, yet any design is already heavily influenced by the client and their perceived need(s) before the designer is even considered or approached. Design thinking begins with a brief and ends with an outcome whereby the designer is managing the process in between, however a key issue of design management is framed by whom or what is directing design and where the designer is placed in this play of forces as a compliant or resistant subject. How do designers think about themselves? Design suggests a thought process has taken place to address a problem and provide a creative solution or outcome. Does the term creative suggest a different approach to the thought process for the designer when in design mode and is creative thinking enough? If design is the link between art and science, where both borrow from nature then should design thinking not model itself on nature and therefore evolution or natural development? To achieve this designers have to become leaders and not service providers, they have to become reflective and creative thinkers, proactive and re-directive. Making critical design decisions that continuously question their role and responsibility at every level of design they must determine the real problem through solution risk mapping not the perceived problem and provide the optimum solution from every aspect of human behaviour through concept risk mapping and understand the future impact of the optimum solution through virtual risk mapping of the impact upon the environment or lack of and how the design fits into our overall lifestyles.
This paper reflects on the principles and practices of design in a time of great social change. Its narrative begins with a reflection on the structural reasons why design practices and professions are acquiring even greater social significance than they have had in the past. After a context-setting examination of notions of 'creative economy' and 'knowledge society', the paper moves on to explore the subtly shifting semantics of 'design', tracing key aspects of the changing contexts and practices of design. The paper introduces the notion of a 'shift in the balance of agency', which affects the roles and relationships of designers and users and which increasingly demands design interdisciplinarity.
Unlike most descriptions of design thinking the model presented here is about the thinking involved. It provides a useful explanation of purposeful thought, design thinking and creativity that integrates concepts from cognitive science and practical experience. The narrative emphasizes the interaction of subconscious and conscious thought and the synthesis, development and communication of information necessary to design thinking on any subject. A useful guide for education, research, and the practice of design thinking is provided. How human design thinking and its artificial augmentation can de integrated in the future is suggested.
1995
This essay proposes new contours for design as a profession in a world whose industrial products have become more and more language-like and incommensurate discourses compete with one another for hegemony-the being merely one of many. It takes design to be constituted (that is, defined with)in processes of languaging. It calls on us to recognize and act in the awareness of how our discursive practices identify us as the experts we are, create the objects of our concerns, and provide us with a vocabulary to communicate or coordinate our actions relative to each other. design discourse The motivation for this essay stems from the far too common experience that whenever designers do work with their counterparts from the so-called 'harder' disciplines, professionals who can argue with statistics, with experimental findings, with calculations or from positions of administrative authority, they most often lose out. Examples are abound. I conclude from them that, first, designers often are preoccupied with products when what matters is how their ideas occur in talk, in clear presentations, in hard evidence, and in compelling arguments. It is communication that makes a difference and gets results. Second, design is foremost conceptual and creative of future conditions. Dwelling on existing facts often inhibits and is generally less important than the ability to bring a multiplicity of people to recognize the benefits of collaborating in the realization of new ideas. Designers are bound to fail when they do not act on the premise that their conceptualizations must make sense to those that matter. Third, the success of famous designers is based primarily on carefully nourished publicity, personal connections, or longtime working relationships with clients. The visual qualities and functionalities in terms of which designers justify their work are never obvious and mostly derivative of their social standing. Forth, facing increasingly sophisticated stakeholders in material culture, designers' claim of possessing superior visual sensibilities has lost much of its appeal and is easily countered even by entirely irrelevant but voluminous data, impressive calculations, predictions, or business arguments. In sum, current. I contend that this need not be so. design discourse has lost much of its rhetorical strength With this in mind, my essay explores what makes engineering (including ergonomic), sociological (including marketing), and economic (including business) discourse so compelling and what makes current industrial design discourse rather easily discountable, wherever they happen to meet. Against the emerging knowledge of how discourses behave, this essay then locates several weaknesses, I am inclined to say " ," inherent in design discourse, and ends up proposing ways of overcoming these. pathologies At the center of this proposal is an astonishingly simple , one that is at least as irrefutable as the axioms of other disciplines with whom designers typically need to collaborate. This axiom holds the promise of an indigenous vocabulary that could make design discourse compelling, gives rise to new research questions, even to a new science for design, suggests a unique identity for designers, and thus creates exciting possibilities heretofore unavailable.
The design of artifacts and how designers make them have garnered renewed societal interest as interactive technologies create new opportunities and challenges. The world we experience has never before been as diverse, socially and materially, or as malleable as it now. Increased computation and interactivity are changing the appearance, evolution, and interactions of the personal and collective artifacts that shape our everyday experiences, family and community life, and learning and work activity. These digital artifacts increasingly leverage sensing and physical interaction to provide information at our fingertips and connect us to people around the globe. This new generation of digital technologies gives people a great deal of discretion as to what artifacts and services they use and how they use them (Grudin, 2005). Adoption and appropriation of new digital artifacts is increasingly part of everyday life, and this change draws our attention-and sense of curiosity-to how these artifacts are designed. When we talk about designing, we share Herbert Simon's (1969) broad view that ''everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones'' (p. 129). The articles in this special issue can usefully be read with that broad view of design. That said, we and the authors focus on design professionals, students, and researchers as canonical instances. As computational artifacts take on new shapes and play new roles, so do designers (Moggridge, 2007). Designers of digital artifacts face more complex constraints than, say, furniture designers a century ago. Their work must integrate diverse considerations, physical and mechanical engineering, software engineering, user interface design and user experience, and aesthetics, as well as diverse culture and human values (Dreyfuss, 1955). The position of design and designers at the nexus of so many complex
E. Laflı, Une approche globale de l’histoire ancienne classique, mais dans une perspective multidisciplinaire et internationale, Dialogues d’histoire ancienne , 2024
AIB Insights
Proceedings of the ComputEL-7 Workshop, 2024
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 2017
Artsformation, 2023
XXXI SEMAD - Semana do Administrador, 2011
Applied Acoustics, 2002
University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh, 2018
Acta Astronautica, 2013
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2018
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 1998
JURNAL MANAJEMEN AGRIBISNIS (Journal Of Agribusiness Management)
Case Reports in Gastrointestinal Medicine
Pharmacological Reports, 2016
Polar Biology, 2016
Sains Malaysiana, 2020
Chemical Engineering Science, 2015