Design Planning

observe

Design Planning

identi

organize A collaborative approach to defining design challenges

connec discuss

define

Shenkar College of Engineering, Design + Art Masters Program

Design Planning

A collaborative approach to defining design challenges

Gershon Paul 3

4

Table of Contents

Introduction 7 The Design Space

11

Defining the Scope

17

Conversation for Innovation

21

Applying Design Planning

25

Design Planning or Thinking?

33

Conclusion 37 Glossary of Terms

41

References 43 5

Introduction

Introduction

Modern design began with the industrial revolution, and modern design theory began after the first world war. In the traditional approach to design, a designer would be presented with a problem and be asked to solve it. Those problems, predefined, would be evaluated by the stakeholder who presented them. Designers did not write the brief, they only followed it. The success of the project was defined by the person who contracted them to make it and there was very little accountability after the fact. However, designers are starting to push back because they recognize that design doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

Designers are beginning to take an earlier role in projects.

Designers are being given the opportunity to be present during the earliest talks relating to a challenge and contribute valuable insights. This approach has a lot of potential.

Designers can now examine the issues more carefully and come up with more effective solutions. This will require a more nuanced understanding of design research than most designers have currently. There are three main challenges 7

Design Planning

that designers will face. Understanding the space they are designing in, defining the breadth of the solution, and communicating with stakeholders. Some designers may consider these challenges intuitively and other design methodologies, such as design thinking, attempt to solve these issues as well. For the designers that do this intuitively, this paper may offer some structure and fill in gaps. For the designers who use other methodologies this paper could offer a different perspective. Most design methodologies focus on the whole design process. This method focuses on collecting data and interpreting it together with stakeholders, in order to write a brief. There are differences in how designers will have to think.

The first way designers will need to shift their methodology is learning how to understand the design space. This will require some designers to change how they do research.

This process will need to become more anthropological in nature with an emphasis on thinking critically, challenging the way that designers have relied on intuition. The second way is defining the breadth of the solution, which will build on the understanding of the space, taking into account the limitations that a project might impose. Lastly, designers will need to reframe the way they converse with the people they work with, in order to have conversations where all parties are equally communicating ideas and challenging assumptions, facilitating innovation.

This change may be hard for some due to limitations in time and therefore the paper outlines a few methods for incorporating these ideas. Each exercise builds on the last.

The methods are meant to be guidelines. This group of techniques can be used alone or in tandem with other design methodologies. Hopefully, they will inspire designers to

8

Introduction

reconsider the interactions we have on a daily basis, opening the door to the conversation about design planning and the role of the people who we are designing for in the process.

Currently, the design process is very designer-centric, meaning designers make decisions for others based on their knowledge. There is a wealth of knowledge to be absorbed from the design space and stakeholders if designers are open to sharing the design process.

Note: In some places, papers are cited discussing “ design� that don’t specifically reference the applied field of design. Regardless, the usage of design in these places is in no way less relevant to applied design theory.

9

The Design Space

The Design Space As discussed before, a design challenge is often brought to a designer by a stakeholder. A stakeholder can be a client or a user. This stakeholder defines the issue and the designer works within that matrix. In order to break out of this restrictive model, we need to redefine our design process.

Currently, there are two main types of design challenges: defined and wicked. Most designers have perceived their challenges as defined up until this point. A defined challenge is simple, with clear goals. Wicked problems are much more complex. The term wicked problem was coined by Horst Rittel.

The way it's understood now is based on an article of the same name written by C. West Churchman in Management Science. In the article he paraphrases Rittel's explanation of a wicked problem as a, "class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are 11

Design Planning

thoroughly confusing." (Churchman, 1967) While Churchman’s summary of a wicked problem is succinct, the original definition offers a lot of valuable insight.

Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber in their 1973 article "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" outlined a more defined list of qualifiers for a wicked problem than what Churchman quoted in his article.

The guidelines are: 1.

There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.

2.

Wicked problems have no stopping rule.

3.

Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but better or worse.

4.

There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.

5.

Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

6.

Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.

7.

Every wicked problem is essentially unique.

8.

Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

9.

The existence of a discrepancy representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution.

10. The social planner has no right to be wrong (i.e., planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate). (Rittel & Webber, 1973) Each one of the qualifiers are expanded on in the article. The overarching theme of each point is that a wicked problem is 12

The Design Space

not a math problem, and the answer is undefined because the question isn't defined either. Most interestingly, in the description of point one, Rittel and Webber write, "Every textbook of systems engineering starts with an enumeration of these phases: 'understand the problems or the mission,' 'gather

information,'

'analyze

information,'

'synthesize

information and wait for the creative leap,' 'work out solution,' or the like. For wicked problems, however, this type of scheme does not work." (Rittle and Webber, 1973) This criticism is easily transferable to design as well. Looking at their list, it would be easy to reframe all design challenges as wicked problems.

Why would a designer want to do this? Because in the current mode of designing most designers don't follow through. There is very little accountability for the things we make and since designers are taking on bigger issues that have real impacts on the world we must take responsibility. By reframing a design challenge as wicked, it would force a designer to recognize all the potential systems that their work might exist within and create more comprehensive designs.

Taking this position creates a lot of difficulty. Churchman, Rittel, and Webber assert that solving a wicked problem is not a matter of true or false, it is a matter of good or bad.

Meaning, if your wicked problem is not solved correctly, then it's likely to make it worse, which is, as Churchman points out, a moral issue. As a designer, how does one approach a design challenge properly if all design issues are really a wicked problem? One approach would be to consider the systems Figure 1 Low2No building.

Helskini, Finland, The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra

that intersect with the design issue as Sitra did in their Low2No project.

In 2017 the Low2No mix-use buildings (figure 1) were completed in Helsinki. The Low2No project was initiated by the Finnish innovation fund, Sitra. The project began with a defined set of goals.

13

Design Planning

The finished project needed to be: 1.

A framework for sustainable development that was replicable and could be adapted to other sites.

2.

A system of indicators that could provide measurable evidence of how carbon neutrality was accomplished.

3.

A design solution – referred to as the “vision” in the brief – to serve as a tangible example for the implementation of the sustainability strategy, testing the degree to which it allowed for the realization of soft accomplishments such as high spatial value, vibrant neighborhoods and changing user behavior. (Park, 2016)

These goals led to a building being selected designed

by C_life, a collective made up of architecture firms Arup, Sauerbruch Hutton Architects, and Experientia. The buildings they designed are clad in wood sourced locally from Finland's logging industry. This presented a challenge. The laws in Finland state that a building over the height of two stories cannot be made of wood. This law was put into place in the early 1900s because of fears that a devastating fire like the Great Fire that happened in 1827 in Turku could occur again.

The advantage to using wood was it has a lower carbon footprint than concrete and it could revitalize Finland's forest industry. Recognizing the potential for environmental change, Sitra petitioned the government to overturn the law. The estimated carbon footprint reduction for those living and working in the C_life buildings is 37% in 2012 and 43% by 2037.

(Helsinki Design Lab, 2013) The C_life project is also an example of how systems are interconnected. When the choice was made to use wood, the design sphere had to interact with the political sphere in order to make that a possibility. Making the political change enabled the design sphere to interact with the environmental in a seemingly positive way. However, this overlap has potential 14

The Design Space

consequences. If the C_life model proves successful and the forestry industry is revitalized, it could increase Finland's carbon sink. This unintended consequence is an example of the "no stopping rule” as defined by Rittel and Webber in their article on wicked problems, you can always try to do better.

One could argue that Sitra has a moral obligation to tackle this issue, since they created a situation where this could be a possible issue. While the interconnected systems approach has potential, it highlights the issues that would come from it and that should be addressed.

Consider the idea of a system further. C. West Churchman in his book, “The Design of Inquiring Systems,” brings a hypothetical discussion of an architect building a home for a family. He writes that the architect can view the home as it is with all the required elements to fulfill its purpose or he can consider the family’s activities and design the home to optimize or change the family’s daily system of use. Alternatively, the architect can conceive of the house being a part of a larger system within a society and make decisions that will influence how it will function in the greater system. Churchman points out that before a designer can begin to solve any challenge they have to define the largest and the smallest system that are relevant to that subject. (Churchman, 1971) This provides an interesting way to reframe the Sitra project. The designers involved in the Sitra project had investigated the potential impacts of using wood in their buildings and found the benifit of revitalizing the logging industry. This should have given them the insight to see the downside of reopening logging in Finland and defined a potential solution in the revision of the outdated law. While this holistic approach is ideal it isn’t always feasible. Designers usually have limitations regarding time and resources. Using the same hypothetical Churchman put forth with the architect, a designer could still define the 15

highest and lowest level details they could have an impact on and then revise that range so that they can do the maximum with the resources and time they have. By doing this a designer will also be able to bring in the right people to the process during the planning phase, such as politicians or ecologists, in the case of the Sitra Low2No project.

Defining the Scope

Defining the Scope

Resources and time are the inhibiting forces of any project. It is very rare that a designer, or any professional, is given the freedom to work without restraints in order to produce the very best product. In this seemingly ideal situation a designer will find themself designing ad infinitum. If a designer has the time and resources to design every aspect of a project they would also have a responsibility to consider every impact of their decisions. In this situation all design problems would be wicked. It’s for that reason that most designers work best when they have limitations. In our new situation, where a designer is a partner in defining the challenge, they are also a partner in deciding on the scope or breadth of the issue.

What does it mean to define the breadth of the issue? As Churchman suggested in his example of the architect, the designer needs to define the micro and macro ideas they want to approach within their project after they have immersed themselves within the system. This initial definition will drive 17

Design Planning

the conversation between a designer and stakeholder which is discussed later in the paper.

In order to begin defining the scope of an issue a designer will have to begin to understand the nature of their challenge.

Up until this point designers have relied on their intuition to design in spaces they’re not familiar with. Intuition isn’t enough if we assume designers will be defining the problem with their stakeholders, because while extremely useful, intuition lacks a basis in empirical evidence.

Intuition in psychology is complicated. Nobel laureate David Kahneman discusses the issue of intuition versus analytical thinking naming them System 1 and System 2. According to Kahneman they operate as parts of a whole. System 1 is in charge of making quick decisions based on “impressions, intuitions, intentions, and feelings” (Kahneman, 2015) which are then, if needed, checked by System 2 and accepted by

A

the brain as beliefs. System 2 will be tapped when System 1 struggles to find an answer or is unsure of the situation. In plain terms, a person will make decisions impulsively, unless they are unsure, in which case they will tap into their analytical

B

side for a more considered answer. Kahneman explains that in general this is fine but System 1 is prone to biases that won’t be picked up by System 2 because System 2 only springs into action when a person is unsure or System 1’s notion of reality is challenged. As one learns System 1 is “programmed” into memory and overcoming that programming is difficult.

Kahneman gives the classic example of the Müller-Lyer illusion (figure 2). He goes on to point out that if you have never seen

Figure 2 Example of Müller-Lyer illusion.

Note: The center lines of A and B are the same size.

this illusion before you will be inclined to assume the lines are different sizes, bypassing System 2. Only after comparing them would one be able to overcome this illusion but every time the viewer would see this illusion they would have to actively ignore their initial impulse which may be difficult.

18

Defining the Scope

(Kahneman, 2015) The Müller-Lyer illusion is easy to overcome, but other biases may be harder. The inability of a person to overcome cognitive biases even when they know what they are is what Laurie Santos calls the G.I. Joe Fallacy. The G.I. Joe Fallacy is based on the 1990’s cartoon G.I. Joe's public service announcements which all ended with the phrase, “knowing is half the battle.” Santos argues that knowing is irrelevant.

(Santos, 2018) The classic marketing trick of a price being $19.99 is given as an example. The buyer knows that this is one penny less than $20.00 but they still experience the price as much less. (Santos & Gendler, 2014) All this knowledge makes a case against using intuition when doing early research and defining the scope of a design. Having a solid foundation is imperative to the success of a project. While intuition has a strong place in design, since it helps make quick connections that would be more challenging to discover analytically, it is important to do the research phase objectively. Having a methodical approach that can be referenced by others and checked along the way, or referred to after by someone who is joining the project, is important. Having multiple sets of eyes on a project from people who are invested in its outcome and from outside experts ensures that the biases will be less common than if the project was done alone. While the process doesn’t need to be scientific in nature, since often design is inhibited by a scientific approach, it should follow a logical progression. Mental leaps should be avoided or, at the very least, analyzed and quantified.

After a designer has done the proper research needed to understand the system they are designing for then they can begin defining the challenges they face. This is the point where the challenges will be reduced from the unsolvable wicked problem and reframed in a way that a designer can make an impact. To put it into plain terms, a wicked problem is one issue 19

Design Planning

that many people view differently. To solve it, everyone needs to agree on a definition of the problem. Once a problem is defined a strategy for a solution can be planned. The ideal plan may be constrained by the resources available to a designer.

This can produce a suboptimal product so it is important to make sure that doesn’t happen by defining the parameters correctly before one begins designing.

A designer can better define their parameters for success using W. Ross Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety. In his book “An Introduction to Cybernetics,” Ashby postulates that one needs a certain amount of variety in a solution to account for the challenges that could be caused by the system. He calls this idea “requisite variety.” (Ashby, 1957) While this is generally used to say that a person needs to account for all the possible issues in a system, and even overcompensate, it can also be used to reverse engineer a project scope. In my interview with Prof. Paul Pangaro he described Ashby’s rule a little differently.

Pangaro said, “you have an environment that has an amount of variety and you want that system to respond to that variation, to control what you want to control.” (Pangaro, personal video interview, April 6, 2020) The last part of the sentence is key, meaning that to define a project scope, a designer needs to settle on the elements that they wish to affect. As Herbert Simon said, “an ant, viewed as a behaving system, is quite simple. The apparent complexity of its behavior over time is largely a reflection of the complexity of the environment in which it finds itself.” (Simon, 1996) To return to the example of Sitra’s architectural project, if they defined the project scope as trying to solve the issues related to a building’s direct impact on the city where it was built, and not the abstract issues that could come from it, then one could argue they succeeded. A wicked problem is a matter of definition.

20

Conversation for Innovation

Conversation for Innovation

The point of the first two steps in my proposed process is to facilitate better communication between designers and stakeholders. Defining the parameters will happen through conversation between a designer and their stakeholders.

In doing so, the ideal outcome will be a synergy of shared language and goals.

The most important thing a designer or any professional can do is to accept that they do not know everything. A professional, even one that is largely considered an expert, is not an expert in all things even within their field of expertise.

The same is true for the stakeholders involved in a design process. The knowledge and ignorance is shared between all parties. Every person’s viewpoint should be considered within reason and examined for value. This concept is known as the Symmetry of Ignorance. (Rittel, 1984) For this reason he suggests that the process of design should be “organized as an argument,� or more gently described, a discussion.

21

Design Planning

The beginning of a project is a great time for designers and stakeholders to organize their thoughts and justify their

+

decisions. Rittel created the issue-based information system,

!

or I.B.I.S. (figure 3), as a way for a person to clarify their decision making process with regard to wicked problems. The three parts of the system are issues, the difficulties that one has found in their research; positions, ideas or answers

? issue

position

argument

argument

related to the difficulties; and arguments, the pros and cons of the positions taken. These three parts can be used to map out one’s thinking and further define the parameters of the eventual design. I.B.I.S. isn’t a solution, it's a tool. The point of I.B.I.S. is to allow a designer and stakeholder to organize their thoughts in a way that they can communicate better since

Figure 3 Simplified diagram of the I.B.I.S. mapping technique.

An issue may have different posistions. A position may have more than two arguments.

dialogue will ultimately be the thing that creates a united front and allows for the free flow of information between parties.

I.B.I.S. is a form of argument mapping. Argument mapping is a way of logically organizing a discussion into clear concise parts that can be revisited in the course of a meeting or project. By weighing pros and cons, stakeholders can come to a joint decision. The process begins with an issue that the parties present want to tackle. Once that issue is defined, everyone can give their positions on the issue, reviewing the pros and cons of what the positions offer. Each step is documented, creating order in the process. I.B.I.S. can also be used to identify other experts and stakeholders who should be consulted during the process. As a tool it is flexible in spite of its rigid appearance. I.B.I.S. also has the added benefit of removing the social hierarchies of the workplace which can muddy the decision making process. Normally, if upper management wants employees or someone employed to do what they wish, there would be little argument because of the power dynamic. Using I.B.I.S. or another mapping technique

22

Conversation for Innovation

would force them to quantify their request. This need to quantify all suggestions and recording the answers gives all parties, big or small, a voice and an opportunity to be heard.

In the process of discussing a challenge, one of the biggest barriers to having a clear conversation is accuracy. Imagine a ball. Now describe the ball. Ask someone else to describe a ball in detail. Chances are that the ball they described is nothing like the ball you described (figure 4). This issue is present in almost every conversation whether it’s important or not important. How does one fix this? If it’s tangible, the easiest way is to have an illustrative object in the room that all parties agree is archetypal. This is a simplified version of what is known as a boundary object. “Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites.

They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete.” (Star & Griesemer, 1989) Star and Griesemer discuss four different types of boundary objects.

Their “Ideal Type” boundary object which “serves as a means of communicating and cooperating symbolically - a 'good enough' road map for all parties,” (Star & Griesemer, 1989) is the most relevant to design planning. The idea is for boundary objects to act as a bridge between parties allowing everyone to have a clear understanding of what they are talking about.

They can be used to test the epistemological foundations of an idea. If it’s something esoteric or undefined, how do you Figure 4 Molten 365 Basketball Probably not the exact ball the other person was thinking about.

define that archetype? Similar to the ball, you want to define the challenge. All parties can describe what they think the issues pertaining to the challenge are and by doing that, one can begin to create a shared description that can be agreed

23

Design Planning

upon by all parties. As stated before, this is a way of creating a bridge to facilitate discussion. This agreed upon description shouldn’t be viewed as immutable. If all parties agree that the original definition is no longer correct then it can be amended and used to test their associations further.

Using boundary objects can help bypass the issue of business specific terminology. Even within fields the meanings of a particular term or phrase can be confused in a conversation. What one professional understands as its meaning can hold another meaning to a second professional.

It’s not uncommon for people to use these jargonish terms as a way to convey their knowledgeability in a subject but this secondary language can obfuscate, accidentally or purposefully, and create a barrier between all the people present during the conversation. This creates a sense of alienation. It could make someone who wished to be involved in the design process feel the eventual solution is not shared, or that the thing they have worked so hard to build is now out of their control because someone has attached meaning to it that they do not understand. In some extreme situations, the confused party will work to undermine any progress. By using boundary objects, physical or described, one can potentially avoid this uncomfortable situation because all stakeholders will have a clear shared vision that will be further defined in a brief. The bridging object will act as a precursor to writing a brief, which ultimately is the goal of this whole exercise. After you’ve defined the aspects of the challenge that you want to solve you can write a more detailed description and plan to solve it .

24

Applying Design Planning

Applying Design Planning To start a design project without a clear brief one needs to define the challenge. This process can be difficult. Each person will have their own impression of what makes up the challenge.

A simple solution is to talk with one another to figure out the challenge but a free dialog presents its own set of difficulties.

The previous chapters outline the theories for a model that helps define a challenge in a design space. The model allows for designers to explore the challenge without being limited to the traditional design space while also providing enough of a framework. This would give those involved in the process a stopping rule, preventing the challenge which has potential for endless exploration from being defined as a wicked problem.

Before a designer can begin the process of defining the challenge, a designer must take the time to understand the subject. If possible, the simplest way is to experience it. A designer should imbed themself or observe as a third party the subject of the challenge and the places it exists. This 25

Design Planning

process could take as little as a day, week, or month and in some special situations much longer. The observation period will be defined by the time available and the complexity of the issue. During this process a designer should document what they see through photographs, video, and journaling.

The latter will allow a designer to write their impressions and experiences in a way that may not be easily decipherable from visual media. This documentation can be shared to display an alternative perspective to stakeholders or experts and open a dialog about what the designer experienced in harmony or contrast to their perspectives. After a designer feels they have enough raw information and understanding they can continue on to defining the design space with the relevant parties.

To define the design space, a designer should frame the challenge in the world. What does this mean? It means zooming out and looking at where the subject of the challenge exists. Is it a small issue that only affects a defined space or population or is it something larger that has a broader impact?

What spaces does the challenge occupy? Are they the same spaces that you expected? When speaking with the designer Alex Padwa he pointed out something rarely considered: a car spends most of its time parked yet it is designed for driving — why? It’s a good question and he said that it’s something most automotive designers aren’t interested in thinking about.

(Padwa, personal video interview, April 3, 2020) A car that sits too long without being driven can have problems like tire rot, decreased battery life, rust, mechanical issues, and brake failure. For a machine that isn’t moving most of its life, maybe more focus should be spent on the time it is stationary?

Similarly, for most people a potato masher spends most of its time in a kitchen drawer. Why then is the average masher designed for mashing only and not the drawer?

26

Applying Design Planning

Figure 5 Here the potato masher has been put into the context of its space.

From the diagram you can see all the spaces it inhabits.The two most important spaces are the drawer and the cooking pot, but in the kitchen a masher can also be found in other areas.The diagram shows that the design of the masher should consider how it will be displayed in stores. Shipping might also be a consideration, although it is not represented here, because that would be the space of the packaging, not the masher itself. However, if someone wanted to add it here it would not be unreasonable.

After defining the design space, one can move on to building a scope for the challenge. At this point a designer should refer to their design space and begin to describe issues that they may see with the challenge and the space the challenge inhabits. The issues can be defined in terms of micro and macro. Micro issues would be issues that are more specific.

Macro issues are issues that are more abstract. The qualities of a material something is made of is a micro issue. The way that material is produced and its environmental impacts is a macro issue. By separating those issues on a sliding scale a designer can get a sense of the potential scale and impact of a project and once the issues have been defined they can also be mapped.

27

Design Planning

Figure 6 In this diagram the subject of the challenge is broken down into descriptive terms.

Each one of the terms represents something specific (micro) or abstract (macro) about the object. The terms are arranged on a sliding scale to further organize the subject. By completing this step, the designers and stakeholders can communicate what they think the parts of the subject are, and the challenges they may present in the context of the previously defined spaces.

To map the issues one should use all the terms from the micro and macro exercise. The terms should be written down. This can be done on post-it notes, a sheet of paper, on a computer, anywhere that makes sense. Make sure to record everything so that it can be reviewed later. Each issue should be separate from the next. Connect the issues that are related to each other. This can be done by drawing a line or using string if you’re making a larger map. When you connect an issue, write why they are connected, if possible. All the stakeholders should agree when writing connections. This extra step will also give more clarity for someone who wasn’t present in the initial process to quickly understand your reasoning. After the map has been drawn, look for groups of issues. Name the 28

Applying Design Planning groups. Consider the groups to decide which issues you have the time and resources to solve.

Figure 7 In this step the team connects the terms they wrote in the previous step.

This helps the team understand how all the terms are connected. Ideally, all connections would have a short explanation describing their relationship. Terms like, “needs to mash well,” and, “ is used in large pots and bowls,” might not be obvious to someone who is seeing this step after the exercise is done. Adding a statement next to the connecting line like, “ large pots and bowls hold more and the masher needs to be able to handle large quantities,” would be important. From this step a team can review the connections and create groups of challenges to solve.

group one

group two

29

1. gets stuck in drawers 2.needs to mash well 3.is used in pots and large bowls 4.pattern for mashing

1. used by adults, children, elderly, people with disabilities 2.muscle powered 3.made of strong material 4. environmental impact 5.costs x to make 6.color 7.has handle 8.durability 9.marketability

Figure 8 Here the terms have been grouped into two challenges.

Group 1 is a challenge describing the relationship the potato masher has in the kitchen. It discusses the design of the masher for its intended function, mashing and the resulting issues because of the design in a kitchen drawer. Group 2 is a larger challenge that focuses on the people who use the masher and its impact on the world. Potentially, Group 2 could be broken down into several smaller challenges such as ergonomics and environmental impact.

Design Planning

At this point, everyone involved should have a good sense of the challenge they face. Using the boundary object technique will ensure everyone agrees on the challenge’s definition. This is important because the next step is to agree on a solution to the problem. That could be very confusing and difficult if everyone’s definition is slightly different.

Once the issues are defined one will need to discuss the best way to solve those issues. Use I.B.I.S. mapping to map the discussion of potential solutions. Mapping the conversation will slow the conversation down and makes the process clearer. It also has the added benefit of being quantitative, leveling the playing field for all stakeholders involved, ensuring the highest quality solutions, instead of going along with the idea of whomever is the most experienced or senior.

Figure 9 A discussion about one of the points in Group 1 is being considered.

I.B.I.S mapping allows for the participants to keep the conversation clear and reference earlier comments. If a stakeholder or expert is brought in later during the project they will be able to understand the conversation and why the team settled on their specific decisions.

30

Applying Design Planning

The last steps in defining the challenge is to agree on a bridging object and then write a brief. It’s important to make sure that during the whole process everyone was talking about the same thing. If not, it could lead to confusion or complications down the line. Having an object, photos, and/or a detailed description that everyone agrees upon will alleviate some of the stress later on in the design process. After the process is complete it should be easier to write a brief with a clear vision of how to solve the challenge.

Figure 10 Description of the team's expectations and the type of masher they want to improve on.

This methodology focusing on observation, communication, and definition is an outline. It offers anyone the tools to really understand any undefined design challenge while aiding in the conversations needed to allow for innovation in the design space. While each step builds on the next, when writing the brief be sure to revisit the old steps. They will offer clarity and perspectives that one might want or need in a project.

31

32

Design Planning or Thinking?

Design Planning or Thinking?

Design is a free expression of creativity in a methodical environment. Many designers seek mental models to focus that creativity and build trust with their employers. One of the

observe

most popular methods for organization in design is design thinking. The design thinking model is succinct and clear. It identify

offers an outline for anyone who wants to design no matter their skill level. The design thinking model is very similar to the engineering model that Rittel and Webber talk about

organize

in "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning," which we discussed before. Design thinking is by nature also designerconnect discuss

collected (alone or collaboratively through co-design). This can lead to biases or decisions made without all the information.

define

Figure 11 Design Planning Model 33

centric, relying on the designer to interpret the data they have

Design Planning seeks to overcome those two challenges.

As a method of reasoning it assumes that all design projects have larger undefined challenges that are the cause of the one that a designer is being asked to solve. This means that every

Design Planning

design problem is potentially a wicked problem. It also accepts that a designer is not able to fully understand the nuances of a problem and therefore needs to begin a project by collecting data and making decisions with all the stakeholders involved.

Design planning is a collaborative way of creating a brief.

Design planning and design thinking are not in conflict with each other. Just the opposite, they can complement each other. In the design thinking model, the empathize phase overlaps with the observation phase in design planning. The

Figure 12 Stanford D*School's design thinking model

only difference is that design planning seeks for a designer to remain objective. The difficulty with empathy is it might create a false sense of understanding in an issue which could create a bias. For that reason, a person who is going through the steps of design planning would take into account that any experience is their own and confirm or contrast what they experienced with other stakeholders. The designer's fresh viewpoint is valid and will challenge the stakeholder's own preconceived notions allowing for more innovative thinking.

It can be argued that the “define” step of design thinking is an umbrella term for all of the remaining steps of design planning. If someone wanted to use design planning in their design thinking process they could. Traditionally, someone doing the “define” stage of design thinking is encouraged to come up with insights and hunches about an issue they’ve identified through their research and then ideate and prototype solutions before discussing it with the stakeholders.

Using design planning, one would go through the define phase by working with their stakeholders the whole way through, defining and agreeing on the issue before moving on to the ideation phase. This approach could save a lot of time in the long run and will make a stakeholder more confident that the designer will be considering their needs. It will also provide a metric for them to use to judge the success of the design. This 34

Design Planning or Thinking?

metric, the bridging object and brief, would be useful in this sense for all parties.

The Design Councils Framework for Innovation also works well for Design Planning. The discovery phase in the Framework for Innovation is very similar to the “observe,” phase in Design Planning. Both emphasize not assuming. The main difference is that in the observation phase of design planning one shouldn't even assume there is a problem.

Instead it is better to just experience and collect data. Going through a process with the assumption that there is an issue can already form a bias. Aside from that, the methods outlined by the Design Council such as Observation, User Diaries, Being the User, Surveys, and Secondary Research all are valuable tools. Each one could compliment the Observation phase of the Design Planning model. The Design Council also focuses on a concept they call "Designing Deeply," (Design Council, 2020) where they attempt to understand the root of the challenge and its wider context so that they, “tackle the cause and not the symptom.” This is a valuable outlook and something design planning attempts to do as well. The Design Council has shifted its focus to a highly collaborative approach in recent years. They aim to democratize design.

Design planning would complement their process.

Figure 13 The Design Council’s framework for innovation.

35

36

Conclusion

Conclusion

Up until recently designers were facilitators. They helped clients make the things they wanted. Now, a designer must become a mediator, not only liaising between manufacturers or users but also in a holistic sense, by helping stakeholders interpret desires and developing ideas. For that reason it is important that a designer remain objective during the design process. Objective doesn’t mean detached, just the opposite.

Designers need to immerse themselves in the design spaces where the challenges exist, first observing how they work and later making sense of it all. They should do this while staying aware of the potential biases that they may have.

In the future there will likely be a new subset of designers that operate much like business consultants. They will collaborate with a company to help define the challenge and work out the solution from a design perspective. The purpose of these designers and their methodology will be to explore the deeper structures that are a part of the designs they propose.

37

Design Planning

They will understand the larger implications of their designs.

They will seek to connect the decision makers with the people affected by their decisions and build teams that can make the best decisions possible together. A designer will be a mediator, not just between people, but also between people and the issues themselves. They will open conversations and create dialogs, real and internal. A designer will build a strong foundation for innovation as the project develops. This might seem utopian but there are already designers who are doing just this. Creatives such as Daniel Burka (Ghoshal & Erondu, 2017) and others have touched on this exact potential.

This proposed methodology isn’t a replacement for other design practices. It seeks to build on the history of design to help it grow. The method should allow designers to predict outcomes with more certainty. It should help designers build a comprehensive design without worrying if the foundational material that their work is built upon is solid. If we rely on the brief, the eventual work will only be as good as the research that initially informed it. Often a company comes to a designer with a brief that has a defined problem and the solution is implied. There is nothing to solve. In that case a designer is a communicator and craftsman but not a problem-solver.

This is an outdated understanding of a designer’s purpose in the workforce. As society and the business world evolve, designers have to as well. Many are taking advantage of the loose hierarchy of start-up culture to have more of an impact.

In order to really open the door for innovation, designers need to adopt and develop new tools for observation and communication, such as the ones discussed in this paper.

Similar to eponymous helmsman of cybernetics, designers can observe and steer a project from its inception to completion by watching, listening, and steering the project toward success along the way.

38

39

40

Glossary of Terms

Glossary of Terms

System - An enclosed group of working parts.

Interconnected System - A system that overlaps with another system and can have either a direct or indirect effect on each other. Example: A drawer in a kitchen. The drawer has its own

system for organizing its contents while it is part of the kitchen as a whole. Most of the contents of the drawer will be used in the kitchen as well. The position, size, and function of the drawer in the kitchen directly influence its convenience and effectiveness.

Therefore the drawer and kitchen are interconnected systems.

Wicked problem - A challenge lacking an agreed upon definition or cause.

Stakeholder - Any person or group of people that has a vested interest in the outcome of a solution

41

42

References

References

Ashby, W. R. (1957). An Introduction to cybernetics. London, England: Chapman & Hall.

Churchman, C. (1967). Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems.

Management Science, 14(4), B141-B142. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/2628678 Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Design Council (2020). Roundtable discussion: Using design to reduce health inequalities. Retrieved September 01, 2020 from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/ document/Health%20and%20Wellbeing%20Roundtable%20 Summary.pdf Ghoshal, B., & Erondu, J. (2017). #7: GV Design Partner, Daniel Burka, on prototyping your way to massive influence.

43

Design Planning

Retrieved August 12, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=TeE6Tx_nO94 Helsinki Design Lab. (2013, July 1). Low2No. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/dossiers/ low2no.html Horst W. J. Rittel, & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/4531523 Kahneman, D. (2015). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Park, G. (2016, April 27). Low2No – A sustainable building design competition that led to the change of the national fire code. Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.sitra.fi/en/ articles/low2no-sustainable-building-design-competition-ledchange-national-fire-code/ Santos, L. (2018). What is the G.I. Joe Fallacy? - Introduction.

Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://www.coursera.org/ learn/the-science-of-well-being/lecture/3U4aX/what-is-the-gi-joe-fallacy Santos, L. R., & Gendler, T. (1970, January 01). 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Retrieved August 11, 2020, from https://edge.org/response-detail/25436 Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Star, S., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 44

References

'Translations'

and

Boundary

Objects:

Amateurs

and

Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. Retrieved August 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/285080

45

Design Planning

This project is dedicated to my advisors Merav Perez, Jonathan Ventura, and (my unofficial advisor) Paul Pangaro; to Alex Padwa, Alon Chitayat, Antonio Alcala, Judah Guttmann, and David Spectre who all took time to listen to my ideas and offer thoughtful insights; to Noah Paul, Josef Van Wyck, and Eliyah Gamburg, who helped test the methodology; to Cody Jastromb for looking over my design and improving it; to my parents for their enthusiasm and support; to my wife for making this possible and to my kids for making me take a lot of breaks.

This project was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

46

47