ACM Interactions magazine
I have now, together with Ron Wakkary, been co-Editors-in-Chief of the ACM Interactions magazine for about two years. It has been a great experience. Reading the submissions is great fun. I have read more about our field than ever before and especially texts about topics I would never have read otherwise. I have also had the chance to work with a large number of wonderful researchers and practitioners in our field. Personally I also think that Ron and I have been fairly successful in developing the magazine in a direction that I find exciting. People may not know this but the number of submissions is growing and the acceptance rate is going down, and today it is way lower than 50 %.
Anyway, the new web site is doing well and now we have added a blog section to which we have been able to recruit a number of really interesting people in the field. We have about 25 researchers and practitioners who on a regular basis will blog. You can take a look at the first blogs already. We hope that this blog will develop into an important part of the magazine and also lead to real debate.
Unfortunately the number of members of ACM SIGCHI who is the owner of the magazine is going down. This is not good since the field as such is growing and so is the CHI conference. So, please if you are not a member of ACM SIGCHI, become one. To be a member of SIGCHI is possible without being a member of ACM so it is not even expensive. You also get a discount at the CHI conference and you get the Interactions magazine sent home to you!
Anyway, the new web site is doing well and now we have added a blog section to which we have been able to recruit a number of really interesting people in the field. We have about 25 researchers and practitioners who on a regular basis will blog. You can take a look at the first blogs already. We hope that this blog will develop into an important part of the magazine and also lead to real debate.
Unfortunately the number of members of ACM SIGCHI who is the owner of the magazine is going down. This is not good since the field as such is growing and so is the CHI conference. So, please if you are not a member of ACM SIGCHI, become one. To be a member of SIGCHI is possible without being a member of ACM so it is not even expensive. You also get a discount at the CHI conference and you get the Interactions magazine sent home to you!
Design Thinking Readings: Going Deeper
Now and then I post a list of what I consider to be core readings in design theory. This time I decided to call the list Design Thinking Readings: Going Deeper. The reason for this new title is that I want to promote design thinking, but also push those who are engaged in design thinking as a movement or approach to go deeper.
Design thinking is a notion that has received a lot of interest during the last decade, which is a development that I see as extremely encouraging. However, as many others have pointed out, when something gets popular there is a danger that it also looses its core and depth and grounding. I have over the years on this blog commented on many books on design theory and design thinking. Often I try to be positive and supportive to these attempts of developing design thinking as an approach, even though it is not always easy. I truly believe that to move a field ahead, quantity is important, that is, to advance the field we do not necessary need the final book on design thinking but we need many books. My hope is that with a growing body of books the chance that someone can write "the book" becomes greater.
As I mentioned, the purpose of this post is to push the design thinking field towards more depth. If the field want to stay relevant it can not only develop its applicability, it also has to develop its basic foundation. Such a foundation will not be built by an increasing stream of books that popularizes design thinking (even if that is also needed), but by connecting design thinking to existing philosophical and theoretical schools of thinking. Design thinking has to distinguish itself by comparing and contrasting itself to other existing ways of thinking by delving into underlying core ideas and assumptions. This can be done by relating design thinking to existing philosophical traditions, but also by developing design thinking as its own tradition. Both are needed.
Going deeper is not a search for an answer. You will not be able to "find" a ready-made design thinking philosophy in any readings. You have to read it all and compose an overall understanding. And this is where individual effort comes into play--you have to do the work--read and think. We are of course all looking forward to the day when someone is really successful with that composition and able to express it in a book that can help us all.
The list below is in no particular order and is very personal. These are some of the readings that have influenced me in my development of my own design thinking philosophy (as it is presented in our book "The Design Way"). I am really interested in getting feedback on this list. I know that many influential books are not mentioned. I have also limited the list to books (except for a few exceptions) which is just my personal preference when it comes to this kind of readings.
As many of my colleagues and collaborators will notice (since I have not mentioned their books :-), this list is focused on readings that connects to deeper ideas and intellectual traditions and less on modern attempts to develop and apply design thinking. I may develop a list with that kind of readings too some day.
So here we go:
Simon, Herbert. "The Science of the Artificial"
Simon's book is a must in the area. Unfortunately, Simon is not read carefully enough by most people who criticize him. [I have found this article by Hatchuel to be a really good help in reading Simon: Hatchuel, A. (2001). Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Program of Herbert Simon. In Journal of Management and Governance. Vol 5, Numbers 3-4, September, 2001.]
Rittel, Horst. (1988). “The Reasoning of Designers”,
This short paper is one of the best explanations of what design reasoning is.
Schön, Donald. "Educating the Reflective Practitioner"
I consider Schön to present the most developed design thinking philosophy and theory today. All his readings should be mandatory for anyone who engage in design thinking. But if that is too much, then this book is a good place to start.
Lawson, Bryan. "How Designers Think"
Lawson's book really helped me to form my own understanding of design. Lawson has over the years continued to publish good books on design.
Dunne, Joseph "Back to the Rough Ground"
Probably the best book ever on practical knowledge and judgment.
Krippendorff, Klaus. "The Semantic Turn -- a new foundation for design"
One of the best contemporary books on design theory.
Pye, David. "The Nature and Aesthetics of Design"
This book was first published in 1969 and is a wonderful book on the relation between craft and design, functionality and aesthetics.
Alexander, Christoffer. "The Timeless Way of Building"
Even though Alexander is more famous for his pattern language work (which is usually heavily criticized , this is the book that to me is still relevant and fundamental in its way of posing challenging questions about the purpose of design.
Borgmann, Albert. "Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry"
Of all the readings in philosophy of technology, this is the one that has influenced me the most. A wonderful critique of contemporary design and technology.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience"
Still one of the best and maybe only books in psychology that has direct influence on how to think about design.
Latour, Bruno. "Pandoras Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies"
A book so full of great ideas that it is almost too much. Latour makes the case for reality in a way that makes sense to design theory, it is all about the particular, about here and now.
Feyerabend, P. K. (1975). Against method : outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge.
Another book that strongly influenced me as a PhD student and I am sure that the basic message from Feyerabend still influences me. Why methods are dangerous and why there are other approaches to change is the message.
Churchman, C. West. (1971). The Design of Inquiring Systems: Basic Concepts of Systems and Organization.
This book made a huge impact on my thinking as a PhD student. Churchman asks the question how we can design a system that can produce knowledge. Design, systems and knowledge, all brought together. [A short version of Churchman's systems philosophy can be found in his book "The Systems approach"]
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolution.
Most people read this extraordinary influential book as being about science. I find the book to be possible to read as a book about design. Notion of paradigm and "normal science" are equally relevant for anyone reflecting on design thinking.
Marcuse, Herbert. "One-Dimensional Man"
All about the consequences of getting stuck in our understanding of the world, and why we have to critically break out of dominating thought figures.
Hillman, J. (1996). The Soul’s Code – In Search of Character and Calling
Another wonderful book that shows what character and calling is all about. Any designer who sees design as based on who you are as much as what you can do should read this book.
Herrigel, Eugen. (1953). Zen in the Art of Archery.
A wonderful book that examines forms of knowing that rests on character and sensibility to reality in a way that good designers should emulate.
Dewey, J. (1934) Art as Experience.
Dewey presents maybe the best foundation when it comes to understanding experience in relation to designed artifacts and systems. Also the philosophical "father" of Donald Schon.
Cross, N. (2010, reprint of 2006 book). Designerly Ways of Knowing.
An excellent book about design as a way of knowing. [A short and simple but great version of Cross's theory of design can be found in his book "Design Thinking"]
Peter-Paul Verbeek (2011) "Moralizing Technology: Understanding and Designing the Morality of Things"
A great book about how to understand designed things.
and finally some self-promotion...
Nelson, Harold & Stolterman, Erik. "The Design Way - Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World"
The 2nd edition is published by MIT Press (2012).
Well, I will maybe update and add more later.....
Book note: Design thinking supporting radically different purposes
On my desk I have for a while had two books that both offer toolkits for design and design thinking. One is aimed at supporting "growths" in terms of business and revenue and one is aimed at developing products and services for communities in need in Africa, Asia and Latin America. With such different purposes, it is interesting to note that what they present as design thinking and the design process is so similar (at least on the surface).
The two books are "Designing for growth -- a design thinking tool kit for managers" by Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie, and "Human Centered Design Toolkit" by IDEO.
When looking at the table of content for the two books the similarities becomes even more obvious. For instance, it is maybe surprising to learn that the chapter "Develop a sustainable revenue model"is to be found in the IDEO book while "Journey Mapping" is found in the Liedtka & Ogilvie book. Several other topics can be found in both, such as brainstorming, conceptual development, prototyping, etc. Both books also push the idea that thinking designerly is not only about thinking but about doing. They also focus intensely on innovation.
Of course the two books deal with very different settings and challenges and therefore also frame design thinking in different ways. The titles are not only labels, they do tell us about some core values that are reflected all through the chapters. Human centered as a value can be contrasted to the notion of growth. Helping people versus helping companies. But this is also a superficial difference since in both cases (as with all design), at the core is ability to design a sustainable model that makes a design robust when it comes to both finances and use over time.
It would be quite interesting to see a careful analysis and comparison of these two books with the purpose to reveal their fundamental design philosophy and theory, their basic design principles, postulates, and assumptions, and how they are translated into prescriptive guidelines and "toolkits". If anyone wants to conduct such an analysis, send me the results.
With the growing interest and excitement around design as a human approach to change in so many areas, the possibility for comparative studies of design thinking also increases. Even though it is possible to find some attempts, I think there is a need for many more studies of that sort. I would also like to see studies like that done with much more critical ambitions. For instance, the two books discussed here could, apart from being critically analyzed in the light of the other book, also be analyzed in relation to contemporary design theory and philosophy of design. More work....
The two books are "Designing for growth -- a design thinking tool kit for managers" by Jeanne Liedtka and Tim Ogilvie, and "Human Centered Design Toolkit" by IDEO.When looking at the table of content for the two books the similarities becomes even more obvious. For instance, it is maybe surprising to learn that the chapter "Develop a sustainable revenue model"is to be found in the IDEO book while "Journey Mapping" is found in the Liedtka & Ogilvie book. Several other topics can be found in both, such as brainstorming, conceptual development, prototyping, etc. Both books also push the idea that thinking designerly is not only about thinking but about doing. They also focus intensely on innovation.
It would be quite interesting to see a careful analysis and comparison of these two books with the purpose to reveal their fundamental design philosophy and theory, their basic design principles, postulates, and assumptions, and how they are translated into prescriptive guidelines and "toolkits". If anyone wants to conduct such an analysis, send me the results.
With the growing interest and excitement around design as a human approach to change in so many areas, the possibility for comparative studies of design thinking also increases. Even though it is possible to find some attempts, I think there is a need for many more studies of that sort. I would also like to see studies like that done with much more critical ambitions. For instance, the two books discussed here could, apart from being critically analyzed in the light of the other book, also be analyzed in relation to contemporary design theory and philosophy of design. More work....
Book micro note: Verbeek's "Moralizing technology"
After a long break with it, I just resumed my reading of Peter-Paul Verbeek's "Moralizing technology--understanding and designing the morality of things" and I realized even more than before how excellent the book is!. Today's observation from the readings is that, I think for the first time, I have read a treatment of Foucault's understanding of ethics that make sense to me. And not just that, for the first time I really think I have to read some of Foucault. Another observation is that the way Verrbeek treats the notion of 'subject' is, to me, really useful and much richer and productive than most of the investigations I have seen before. The relation between a subject and technology is outlined in a way that makes sense and is highly convincing to me. Will review the book later!
Book note: "Design Thinking" edited by Thomas Lockwood
During these last few years the notion of design thinking has evolved into a concept that is attracting enormous attention both in academia and business. However, some have argued that design thinking is only a hype, some that design thinking is already dead, and some have already moved on to the next big thing, whatever that is. However, while design has gotten some serious attention from design researchers (such as, Schon, Rittel, Cross, Krippendorff, Nelson & Stolterman), it has also received attention from the world of business and practice.
A recent book that brings together reflections with a focus on the business world is "Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value" (2010) edited by Thomas Lockwood. Lockwood is the president of the Design Management Institute (DMI), which is an institute that is aimed at the advancement of design in management and business.
The book contains about 24 short essays by writers that are either researching design in business and management or practicing designers in various organizations. The book is divided into four sections with fairly distinct themes. The first is about design thinking methods, the second about values and brands, the third about service design and the last one about experience design. The book is introduced by an essay by Lockwood himself on the importance of integrated thinking.
If you are looking for a book that clearly shows how people engaged in business strategy and design, this is it. You get a lot of short essays where professionals describe their design thinking and approach, each in 2-4 pages. The essays are filled with cases and examples from companies and organizations where the authors have worked or worked for. It is obvious that many of these authors have deep knowledge and understanding of design as an approach and process (while some do not). They understand the complexity of introducing design thinking in organizations. They have experience of turning design thinking into action. In many cases the chapters consist of hand-on guidelines and principles.
In our book 'The Design Way' Harold Nelson and I develop the notion of schemas. We define schemas as "compositionally ordered or organized cognitive schematics used to support design inquiry or action" (Design Way, page 7). The Lockwood book is full of schemas, even though it can be argued how good many of them are in fulfilling their purpose. It is clear that many designers try to condense their knowledge and experience into schemas of different kinds. In most cases these schemas are visual graphics while sometimes more 'ordered' lists of bullets. In most cases the purpose is to condense very complex phenomena or activities into something graspable and comprehensible. I found several really interesting schemas in the book from professional designers that in my view give a much better and richer description of certain aspects of design than many academic attempts. So, the book can serve as a provider of potential design schemas that can be analyzed and evaluated for particular use.
Overall the book does not really provide me with any serious intellectual or theoretical insights, but it does provide the reader with some professional and practical reflections on design as an approach in organizational settings. I think the book can be quite valuable to students and inexperienced design thinkers in their attempts to master the 'real world' of design.
A recent book that brings together reflections with a focus on the business world is "Design Thinking: Integrating Innovation, Customer Experience, and Brand Value" (2010) edited by Thomas Lockwood. Lockwood is the president of the Design Management Institute (DMI), which is an institute that is aimed at the advancement of design in management and business.
If you are looking for a book that clearly shows how people engaged in business strategy and design, this is it. You get a lot of short essays where professionals describe their design thinking and approach, each in 2-4 pages. The essays are filled with cases and examples from companies and organizations where the authors have worked or worked for. It is obvious that many of these authors have deep knowledge and understanding of design as an approach and process (while some do not). They understand the complexity of introducing design thinking in organizations. They have experience of turning design thinking into action. In many cases the chapters consist of hand-on guidelines and principles.
In our book 'The Design Way' Harold Nelson and I develop the notion of schemas. We define schemas as "compositionally ordered or organized cognitive schematics used to support design inquiry or action" (Design Way, page 7). The Lockwood book is full of schemas, even though it can be argued how good many of them are in fulfilling their purpose. It is clear that many designers try to condense their knowledge and experience into schemas of different kinds. In most cases these schemas are visual graphics while sometimes more 'ordered' lists of bullets. In most cases the purpose is to condense very complex phenomena or activities into something graspable and comprehensible. I found several really interesting schemas in the book from professional designers that in my view give a much better and richer description of certain aspects of design than many academic attempts. So, the book can serve as a provider of potential design schemas that can be analyzed and evaluated for particular use.
Overall the book does not really provide me with any serious intellectual or theoretical insights, but it does provide the reader with some professional and practical reflections on design as an approach in organizational settings. I think the book can be quite valuable to students and inexperienced design thinkers in their attempts to master the 'real world' of design.
Some notes on ACM Interactions and the CHI community
As some of you may know, together with Ron Wakkary, I have been the Editor-in-Chief now for the ACM Interactions magazine for more than two years. It has been a great experience in so many ways. We have tried to give newcomers to the field, from both academia and industry, an opportunity to share their experiences, knowledge and insights, while also bring in the most distinguished names in the field to share their expertise. ACM has also been instrumental in developing a new website for the magazine, that is now slowly becoming a core part of Interactions.
After having worked with Interactions for a while, it is clear to me that there is need for this form intermediary type of publication between research publications and trade journals. First of all, Interactions is not peer reviewed. This means we can publish new perspectives and ideas that would be almost impossible to get published in traditional conferences and journals. If you take a look at ACM Interactions over time, it is clear that many new "trends" were published much earlier in Interactions than anywhere else. It is also important to a field that has a major focus on professional development to get input from professionals and the industry.
Of course, this double purpose means that a magazine such as ACM Interactions suffers in other ways. For instance, researchers do not necessarily see it worth the trouble to publish in the magazine since it does not "count" as a scientific publication. At the same time professionals may still find the magazine too academic and not enough in resonance with and relevant to their professional reality.
My personal belief is that HCI as an academic discipline and as manifested in the major conferences (CHI, DIS, NordiCHI, etc) has taken on the purpose and goal to improve practice and use. This means that HCI has a strong focus on professional development, building knowledge and tools for practitioners for design and for understanding use. (This is of course not the only purpose that a field like HCI can adopt, more about that somewhere else.) The SIGCHI community is a blended community of researchers and professionals. Such a blended community is unique and something that very few other academic disciplines have. This focus on professional development makes it crucial to have venues where knowledge about practice can flow both ways, from academia to practice and from practice to academia.
To me, ACM Interactions is today a venue that subscribe to that purpose and does fairly good. It can be done much better and we are trying to move in that direction. For instance, it is crucial to have the best thinkers in the field write about their ideas in a way that makes it accessible to any researcher and practitioner in the field. It is also crucial to have professionals to write about their experiences in a way that points to under-researched areas and that present insights that can only emerge from being fully engaged in practice over time, which is something that researcher are not able to do.
All these different goals and conditions make it s difficult to make a magazine like ACM Interactions successful. It is all about balancing conflicting desires and needs from many stakeholders (as any design project). The key is to design something that does not become a dull compromise but raises above the conflicting interests and add value to all stakeholders.
[As a foot note I want to mention a few things about Interactions:
-- We are seeing a steady and increasing flow of submissions. Even though Interactions is not peer reviewed, the acceptance rate is going down.
-- We are still not sure that we are covering the whole breadth of HCI and are strongly inviting those who feel that Interactions does not cover their aspect of HCI to submit to us.
-- We are always looking for professionals that want to contribute to the discussion about the field to submit.
-- We also do want Interactions to be a place for discussion and debate, so we welcome comments and feedback on existing articles.]
After having worked with Interactions for a while, it is clear to me that there is need for this form intermediary type of publication between research publications and trade journals. First of all, Interactions is not peer reviewed. This means we can publish new perspectives and ideas that would be almost impossible to get published in traditional conferences and journals. If you take a look at ACM Interactions over time, it is clear that many new "trends" were published much earlier in Interactions than anywhere else. It is also important to a field that has a major focus on professional development to get input from professionals and the industry.
Of course, this double purpose means that a magazine such as ACM Interactions suffers in other ways. For instance, researchers do not necessarily see it worth the trouble to publish in the magazine since it does not "count" as a scientific publication. At the same time professionals may still find the magazine too academic and not enough in resonance with and relevant to their professional reality.
My personal belief is that HCI as an academic discipline and as manifested in the major conferences (CHI, DIS, NordiCHI, etc) has taken on the purpose and goal to improve practice and use. This means that HCI has a strong focus on professional development, building knowledge and tools for practitioners for design and for understanding use. (This is of course not the only purpose that a field like HCI can adopt, more about that somewhere else.) The SIGCHI community is a blended community of researchers and professionals. Such a blended community is unique and something that very few other academic disciplines have. This focus on professional development makes it crucial to have venues where knowledge about practice can flow both ways, from academia to practice and from practice to academia.
To me, ACM Interactions is today a venue that subscribe to that purpose and does fairly good. It can be done much better and we are trying to move in that direction. For instance, it is crucial to have the best thinkers in the field write about their ideas in a way that makes it accessible to any researcher and practitioner in the field. It is also crucial to have professionals to write about their experiences in a way that points to under-researched areas and that present insights that can only emerge from being fully engaged in practice over time, which is something that researcher are not able to do.
All these different goals and conditions make it s difficult to make a magazine like ACM Interactions successful. It is all about balancing conflicting desires and needs from many stakeholders (as any design project). The key is to design something that does not become a dull compromise but raises above the conflicting interests and add value to all stakeholders.
[As a foot note I want to mention a few things about Interactions:
-- We are seeing a steady and increasing flow of submissions. Even though Interactions is not peer reviewed, the acceptance rate is going down.
-- We are still not sure that we are covering the whole breadth of HCI and are strongly inviting those who feel that Interactions does not cover their aspect of HCI to submit to us.
-- We are always looking for professionals that want to contribute to the discussion about the field to submit.
-- We also do want Interactions to be a place for discussion and debate, so we welcome comments and feedback on existing articles.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I am developing a theory of interaction (!). In the process of doing that, I am trying to categorize my theory. To do that I need to know wh...
-
It is obvious that 'design thinking' as an approach to change has never been more popular than now. Everywhere on the web it is poss...
-
Nigel Cross has for a long time been one of the most prominent researchers of design. He has a background as an architect and industrial des...