I have found it is useful to think of definitions of design, designing, design thinking as "stepping stones" that help us move the conversation along, rather than straight jackets defining what is in and what is out. In that sense, they are perhaps not really definitions at all. But then language is like that, always begging to be more than it is at the moment.
At the Weatherhead School our faculty has made a commitment to incorporating design throughout our curricula. As you might guess, this is a rare thing for a management school to attempt, so there has been a good deal of discussion about just what it means.
There are those who have argued that it means nothing at all, because “design is everything.” For them, I quote the design historian and theorist Ralph Caplan. “Design is not everything, but it somehow gets into almost everything.” Others argue that it is “next to nothing; it’s not innovation (coming up with the ideas), it’s not implementation (working out the logistics), it’s not entrepreneurship (coming up with the money). So, it’s next to nothing; styling perhaps.”
Still, as a faculty they have agreed to go on the journey. And things have, in the two years since we set this course, progressed in amazing ways. The outcome of one conversation was that we agreed to accept the stepping stone theory of defining. We cooked up three workable definitions that taken together have satisfied an amazing variety of professors (not an easy group to satisfy as a rule).
Design is the process of finding and solving non-routine (wicked) problems, often with a focus on bringing new products or services to market.
Design is the intentional assembly of systems with interacting parts to achieve some objective.
Design is a collection of methods and techniques, often drawn from the fine arts, to creatively solve problems.
Related Stories: | Topics:Innovation, Technology, Management, Design, design thinking, defining, Ralph Caplan, Weatherhead School |
Recent Comments | 4 Total
May 4, 2009 at 8:35pm by Peter Thomson
Great insight that you can move towards a useful definition of design by looking for various definitions that are "fit for purpose" instead of struggling forever to find a single definition.
September 10, 2009 at 6:44am by Jonathan David
Fred - While the willingness to lead the field is admirable, don't you think you and your colleagues (and not the least, your trusting students) will run into a wall of confusion - without a clear definition, a theoretical base and industry acceptance of this approach (field?)?
And is it not a major challenge for each functional area to find ways to meld other course content with this "novel" approach? And to what end?
Why not have just one course on contemporary topics - as is common in many schools - perhaps make it interdisciplinary? Are you and your colleagues not worried about the risk of incorporating such a malleable, fuzzy, undefined concept (not even a construct) into your entire curriculum, as you note?
Best wishes with your efforts.
September 14, 2009 at 4:49pm by Fred Collopy
Jonathan,
Thanks for your considered questions. I'd like to respond.
I am not against clarity in definitions, just rigidity. Peter put it nicely when he noted that we need definitions that are fit for purpose. The goal is understanding, not fixedness.
It is, of course, a challenge for the disciplines. But this is a challenge borne of responsibility to the world we manage. As with ethics, it is not possible to divorce design and designing from its context. So people who know finance and marketing and supply chains are the right ones to face the design issues (as well as the ethical issues) raised by those particular contexts.
Thanks for your interest and your good wishes. Sincerely.
December 1, 2009 at 3:54am by Santosh Guptha
Very Good Posting
http://www.icd10codingtraining.com