Thought this was an informative and inspiring article by Steve Baty an industrial designer. Describing the process of design, relevant to our current packaging solution project.
Without an understanding of the underlying characteristics of Design,
we restrict our ability to improvise and innovate the processes and
methods we use to undertake our work as designers. A lack of discourse
about Design quickly leads to stagnation, unless external sources
provide a transformative—evolutionary or revolutionary—influence. It is a
sign of a lack of reflection, self-awareness and critical analysis.
As designers looking to improve our Design work, such reflection
plays an important role, for it allows us to look at several facets of
Design at once:
» Quality of execution of our process and methods
» Appropriateness of the process and methods to the challenge at hand
» Success of our designs
Project post-mortems tend to look at the first of these two; our
customers (or lack) tell us the third. But in order to understand and
answer questions of appropriateness, we must first understand the intent
of a Design process and the methods therein. What is often discussed
are the variants of overall process or variants of the individual
methods. An articulation of the pros and cons of these variations
focuses on a range of attributes such as efficiency or productivity, but
rarely evaluates how the process or method satisfies the intent of the
design activity. This omission is due to the fact that the intellectual
discourse of design spends little time on articulating a deconstruction
of the design process with respect to its intent, and instead looks
primarily at its component tasks or methods. That intent is a
realization of the characteristics of Design as a means of understanding
and solving problems.
Intent
The basic intent of a design activity is the creation of some
'thing,' the specifics of which depend entirely on the problem being
addressed. That 'thing' begins as an idea; it is extended, detailed,
tested and refined.
There are, then, several different considerations in operation during the design activity. The first is the
origin of the idea
or ideas, so as to maximise our chances of success. But more ideas do
not immediately or necessarily lead to success. There is, then, the
desire for many different ideas to be generated; a method by which these
are evaluated and methods by which these are developed, refined and
ultimately delivered.
A second consideration is that the
refinement of ideas be directed. And directed towards the solution of the identified problem.
Thirdly, there is the question of
from whence such ideas are born. What are the triggers, the seeds and the form of each.
Finally, there is the question of
how it is we arrive at our understanding of the problem we are serving. And how that understanding is both articulated and shared.
And so, in an attempt to address the various considerations, the design process seeks to:
» Understand the problem to generate and evaluate ideas
» Realise the best ideas from those generated
» Communicate a shared understanding of the problem, the solution and the process.
Understanding the Problem
At its heart, design seeks to purposefully improve the lot of some
segment of humanity through the enablement or improvement of some human
endeavour. To understand the gap or the current shortcomings of that
human endeavour design undertakes direct, primary research with our
'target' segment—along with whatever secondary to tertiary research is
appropriate. More importantly, and philosophically, design seeks such
understanding from the perspective of the people engaged in the end
result—our target a.k.a. the people we are attempting to help.
Our tool here, and the vehicle for such understanding, is empathy.
Empathy should be employed with eyes wide open to our surroundings, and
the broader activity or purpose within which our 'problem' resides. From
this vantage we have access to culture, personal motivation, meaning
and significance. We can see why someone chooses to do a thing and why
they choose not to.
We have one more significant vehicle at our disposal in our efforts
to understand the problem: a deconstructed worldview through which the
designer identifies and critically appraises each constraint, real or
perceived, within the problem area. This combination of empathy and
deconstruction allow for a third vehicle or tool: that of reframing.
Reframing a problem is the path through which we ask the question: "What
problem are we really solving?"
All designers have the potential for hubris and arrogance that comes
with the belief that we have answers to questions others don't; an
arrogance borne of being correct some of the time and asking questions
that most others don't think to ask. But the reality is that we can be
wrong—wildly wrong—and we need self-awareness of this tendency. To
temper this arrogance we involve a broad cross-section of people into
the process of understanding the problem: people like customers and
non-customers, the people who help them make decisions and the people
within our organisation that make the products and services they
purchase. Although it is ultimately our role to appropriately frame the
problem, by engaging these people in the process of understanding, we
increase our chances of success dramatically.
Generating & Evaluating Ideas
There is a critical step the designer must take in order to move from
an understanding of the problem to a design idea. In many respects,
analysis is crucial to realizing the value of our research since good
analysis can salvage something from bad research, but the converse is
not so true.
Analysis has many
component techniques from deconstruction to abstraction and generalization.
These provide us with tools to collate individual observations into
more and more generalized knowledge about people and to identify
patterns within our data. During our research our aim is to learn as
much as we can about the problem area. We capture photographs, stories,
facts and trends. We dissect the foundations of the status quo and ask
"Why?" and "What if?".
This process of deconstruction provides the raw materials with which the designer works, not in form, but concept.
During this process of understanding we are able to say, explicitly, two things (Kolko, J):
1. I saw this
2. I know this
Together these provide an insight, a window of understanding into the
problem. To this insight we can add a broad trend or design pattern,
something that shapes our reaction to the world around us. Insight and
pattern provide the spark for an idea. This is the process of
synthesis,
the act of joining two disconnected concepts or facts. With synthesis
we have the generative engine of design. But if there is a strength and
power to design, then it lies in the leap taken during synthesis. This
leap can be shown and understood in hindsight, but not seen beforehand.
This
abductive thought process is the means by which the designer generates disruptive ideas.
The beauty of ideas is that they are a never-ending resource. With
time and energy we can come up with an endless supply of them. When we
capture many ideas, our emotional attachment to each is thereby
diminished. This is an important characteristic of design: it allows the
designer to more meaningfully and objectively assess the value of each
idea. The designer not only generates a
multitude of ideas,
they maintain those ideas for the extent to which they demonstrate
value. The multiplicity of the designer's approach allows them to be
more exhaustive without sacrificing time. It is this characteristic of
design, rather than iteration, that truly to leads to success.
With experience and practice designers can generate more ideas, more
quickly, and of higher quality. Even so, not all ideas are good; some
don't achieve the objectives for the solution. The designer has three
methods at their disposal for evaluating the quality of an idea:
i) self-evaluation
ii) critique/review by others
iii) testing and evaluation by the target end 'customer'
Self-evaluation allows a designer to assess a design
on the basis of intrinsic qualities. It is difficult for a designer to
generate the objectivity necessary for a thorough evaluation of their
own work.
During
critique, the designer presents each of their
concepts to the rest of the project team and receives feedback on the
elements of the design that meet the objectives and those that require
refinement in order to meet them. Critique provides an objective,
time-efficient and effective method of winnowing out those concepts that
least meet the objectives of the project. There are a few things to
note about critique. Firstly, it's an implicit recognition on the part
of the designer that they're fallible. This admission is an important
one in maintaining the humility of the designer. Secondly, it is another
example of how the involvement of other people in our design work can
help to strengthen the quality of our designs. The review of our fellow
designers provides numerous additional perspectives.
The third method of
testing and evaluation is a
further example of the participatory nature of the design activity.
During these activities, customers representative of our intended
audience are given access to a version of the design and asked to
provide feedback. That feedback might be explicit, an
evaluation—commentary or critique—or implicit—observations from a
researcher/tester, the successful, or otherwise, completion of a task,
facial expressions and gestures. In some cases the designer will use
these sessions to trigger direct design input from the customer, asking
them to provide new concepts and ideas. Such input, known as co-design,
is another characteristic of Design.
Communicating a Shared Understanding
In order to communicate, share and evaluate concepts the designer
must make them tangible. It is not enough to simply attempt a verbal or
written description. Words can be evocative, but they can never do
justice to the richness of a design concept. Instead, the designer gives
their ideas form as a sketch or prototype, and removes the ambiguity
that comes with the written and spoken word. Further, a sketch or
prototype uses a language of its own—one which we all share regardless
of cultural or ethnic background.
A sketch might be a quick drawing to communicate a detail of the
design or an abstract, conceptual map of the entire concept. Sketches
come in a wide range of fidelity and quality, defined more by their
purpose than their quality. Sketches are intended to be discarded, a
sign-post along the way, not the destination.
A sketch can be shared with others, re-drawn, annotated, refined or
discarded—all with little or no expense. The low cost of creation makes
sketching an ideal tool to be used in early, exploratory phases of a
design process. Regardless of method, the intention of a sketch is that
it makes concrete and explicit an idea. A rough drawing, a theatre
improv, an eraser tied to a marker—these are equally sketches.
As a concept develops, our use of the quality of tangibility shifts
to an implementation (rather than conceptual) mode, and our needs move
to the realm of understanding the mechanics of a concept. How will the
pieces fit together? How will a person interact with the object? Does it
still meet its intended purpose? Prototypes are still cheap relative to
a production model, although only when we take into account the full
cost of readying for production. Motor vehicle prototypes, for example,
tend to be much more expensive on an individual basis than their
production counterparts, but the prototype avoids the machining and
configuration costs of an assembly line needed to make production
versions. A prototype is the ultimate in "this is what I mean" when it
comes to communicating, sharing and evaluating an idea. As a means of
rigorously testing a concept prior to the expense of manufacture or
production, prototypes make a great deal of sense.
Qualities of Design
These are the qualities of a Design process:
* Deconstructionist perspective
* Understanding born of empathy
* Abductive thinking and synthesis
* Multiplicity
* Critique
* Participatory and co-design
* Tangibility
Regardless of the overall process or the individual methods used,
these qualities are what we strive for when conducting design
activities. Combined, they provide a great deal of power in defining,
framing and solving problems of any type, but they are particularly
well-suited to problems of a more complex nature. Ensuring that your
process and methods deliver on each of these qualities significantly
increases your chances of success as you embark on your project.
source: http://www.core77.com/blog/articles/the_character_of_design_by_steve_baty_21975.asp#more
