What makes a prototype novel?

At the NordiCHI  Conference in October, Mikael Wiberg and I presented a paper:

Wiberg, M. & Stolterman, E. (2014) What Makes a Prototype Novel? – A Knowledge Contribution Concern for Interaction Design Research. NordiCHI '14, October 26 - 30 2014, Helsinki, Finland.

The paper is about something anyone engaged in HCI research is familiar with. Here is how we present it in the introduction of the paper:

"Every time we review a paper describing a new interactive system, every time we go to a conference or when we are presented with a new interactive system from industry we repeatedly find ourselves asking “Have I not seen this system before?” or stating “This system does not remind me of anything I have ever seen...”. These questions are related to a fundamental research consideration concerning how it is possible to conceptualize and relate different designs to each other and to the existing body of knowledge. In short, we address the question “what makes a prototype novel?” and accordingly a manifestation of something new, a knowledge contribution to our field. "

This is both a simple and difficult question. How do we know that a new design actually represents a new knowledge contribution or not? Most of us in the field agree that prototypes are crucial as part of the knowledge production process, but in what way? In the paper we discuss some of the earlier attempts that have been made to solve this question. We also propose some potential ways to move forward in a more structured and formal way. We propose the notion of generic design thinking or concepts. 

Below is the Discussion section from the paper. Of course it is not easy to understand just the final section of a paper, but it may give a sense of what we are trying to do. If you are interested in these questions, let us know.

"DISCUSSION – WHAT IS A ‘NEW’ DESIGN? AND HOW CAN WE ADVANCE HCI DESIGN RESEARCH THROUGH GENERIC DESIGN THINKING?

When generic design concepts are used in architecture, there are two ways of handling designs that are new: as novel or as unique. Importantly, for something to be considered new it is not sufficient merely to be novel in the sense of having “odd properties”. Instead, for a design to be unique or new, it must involve at least one of the following criteria: 

• the application of an established generic model to a new problem or in a new domain 

• a design that combines elements from multiple established generic models 

• the addition of a new element to a known generic model manifested in a design 

• a combination of a new generic model and a design that defines a new design space such that the design demonstrates the potential scope of the new space. 

In this context, novelty that stems from an evolution of a design’s underlying model reconfigures the landscape of design spaces; if done particularly well, it creates new space within this landscape that others can join and exploit. 

We see several important implications of this suggestion for the advancement of HCI design research. 

First, generic design thinking reject designs that are not properly situated within a web of existing and already known design ideas. The new cannot be advanced without understanding how it relates to existing design ideas. That is to say, a new ultimate particular (a concrete design) needs to be anchored in the general (that is, in some theoretically articulated idea). 

Secondly, generic design thinking implies a shift in focus away from specific properties of a given ultimate particular towards generic dimensions in new designs. This shift has implications for what we need to express with a particular design. It also raises questions about which factors should be incorporated into a design and which can be omitted when designing prototypes during the research process. This could potentially reduce the difficulty of developing research prototypes as fully implemented systems (and the need to include a lot of specific system features, etc). 

Thirdly, generic design thinking implies the need for more deliberate work in HCI on the formulation of classes of interactions. Today, direct manipulation, embodied modes of interaction, and agent-based interaction models could be seen as some relatively stable classes that are important for the formulation of generic design principles in HCI. But what other kinds and ways of grouping interactions and interaction technologies can we imagine? And how can we move forward and become more specific? And what are the existing good examples? 

Finally, generic design thinking provides a practical tool to improve our ability to compare and evaluate different designs. In this way, it could provide a foundation from which to address design quality and to make judgments about designs that are rooted in more than just the opinion of an individual designer. This aligns well with the proposed concept of interaction criticism [2]. 

In this paper we have proposed, described and exemplified generic design thinking in the format of a four-step method and approach to systematically move forward (design) while also more systematically understand and learn (analyze) from past designs. Although we have so far only described this as a first draft of a method we are convinced that this approach might redirect our field slightly from being heavily future-oriented to also acknowledge the utility of working backwards from a design to its conceptual roots – to trace design ideas through the analysis of designs. Importantly, generic design approaches require critical analysis of the history of design within HCI in order to anchor the new and novel in the history of ideas. 

In wrapping up our paper, we should return to its basic message. We do have recent research stressing the importance of concept-driven design research [25] and we do have a good understanding of how ‘strong concepts’ [13] can advance our field. At the same time we lack methods to systematically relate different concepts to each other and in relation to particular designs. Here is where generic design thinking can play an important role as to systematically advance our field while keeping our design-driven approach.  Given this take on the subject we should state that in order to answer the most central question for design-driven HCI “when is a new design a knowledge contribution?”, we must first, as a field of research, establish the method and approach for guiding the systematic work of conceptualizing and theorizing these designs. In this paper we have suggested ‘generic design thinking’ as an initial attempt to move in the direction of the development of one such method and approach."

The Anatomy of Prototypes

In preparation of a lecture on Monday I had to re-read an article that I wrote together with Youn-Kyoung Lim and Josh Tenenberg called "The Anatomy of Prototypes: Prototypes as Filters, Prototypes as Manifestations of Design Ideas".

I don't think I have read the whole article in a few years which is always an exciting  and a bit nervous experience. Anyway, this time I was pleasantly surprised. I really find this article to be interesting and still useful. Unfortunately I have not done any more work on this topic since we wrote this article but after having read it now, I think I  have to.

I am more convinced than ever that what our field needs are analytical tools that makes it possible to investigate specific entities in a structured way. In this article we propose an anatomy of prototypes that supports such investigations of one of the most important entities in our field--the prototype.

It would be great if we could develop similar "anatomies" for other entities in our field. The 'power' of anatomies (or frameworks) is that they (if done well)  provide clear definitions that support examinations, categorizations and understanding without being prescriptive. The anatomy of prototypes that we provide in our article is a conceptual tool for the analysis and description of every possible prototype without saying anything at all how to design prototypes or what constitute a good prototype (except in a very abstract but principled and precise way).

Anyway, good to return to "old" texts and to discover that they still can be valuable and not outdated.

The common mistake of seeing design as a particular field or profession

I have written here before about the mistake of seeing design as a profession and/or a discipline. To me, design is an approach, a way of approaching reality with the purpose to change it. There are no given design areas or disciplines. Instead it is the nature of the problem/situation that usually determines what is a field or discipline. So, for instance, graphic design is a field that has to do with graphic and visual artifacts, architecture is a field that engages with buildings and structure, etc. They are not by nature design fields or disciplines.

Graphic design has some similarities with architecture of course. Some of those similarities can be seen as related to materials, surfaces and structures. Some similarities have to do with how people perceive forms, shapes and colors and their combinations. To me it is obvious that you can approach these qualities either with a scientific approach or with a designerly approach or with a combination. This means that graphic design and architecture can, depending on how we understand them, be seen either as two science based disciplines or two design based disciplines.

This is why it becomes so confusing when people or companies try to state what design is based only on their experiences in one field and only from one persepctive. For instance, Zillions Design (a logo design company) puts out what they call a Periodic Table of Winning Design Elements. They write:

"The following infographic on the Periodic Table of Winning Design Elements, completely sums up what goes on in the design field right from what basic skills designers need to have to design elements to how to handle clients."

Of course they don't mean that this is table in a comprehensive way describes all design elements for all design areas. They probably think about logo design. But they don't state that, which is unfortunate. It creates a lot of confusion. It is possible to develop a periodic table of design elements that is meant to be true for all design areas (see my book "The Design way" as an attempt to do that). I would welcome anyone who would engage in the attempt to further an understanding of design, not as a discipline or profession, but as an overall human approach of inquiry and action that can deliver outcomes that other approaches (science, art, politics, etc) can not.

Design is not a profession or a discipline

At a recent design research conference I heard many statements beginning with "we designers..." or "the profession of design...". Almost all these statements are based on the idea that there are certain people that are designers and then others who are not. In many cases participants talked about the design profession  (in most cases meaning "those of us who are educated in design schools"). It is as being a designer is a stamp and when you have the stamp then you are a designer.

The way design has developed over the last three decades has made it almost impossible to argue that design is a profession and/or a discipline, but still it seems to be a prevalent belief even among those who know more about design than most everyone else.

I like to make the comparison with other human approaches, for instance, science. Very few would state that being a scientist is a profession or even a discipline. Science is a way to approach the world with the purpose of creating knowledge. The scientific approach can be "used" in any profession and discipline. People engage in science. People engage in design. [Of course, there is the same issue in science, people who believe they are scientists and that science is a profession.]

Architecture has nothing to do with design unless people in architecture engage in design. Architecture can be exercised in a fashion that employs no designerly thinking or activities. Architecture can be performed as a scientific activity or as a process of art, or as a process of randomness and chance. Architecture is not in itself a design profession. Neither is graphic design, interaction design, or any other field. These words however do denote professions, that is, areas where professionals have the task of developing certain types of artifacts or services. They are in many cases also academic disciplines, but that does not make them into design disciplines.

Designing is an human approach for inquiry and action well suited for bringing change into the world. But it is not a profession or a discipline. A person is not a designer, but a person may use a designerly approach to fulfill their goals.

Vitruvius was right about design knowledge (2000 years ago)

Many who have studied design theory know that Vitruvius was one of the first practicing designers (architect) and design thinkers who formulated thoughts and theory about design. At the same time I believe that there are not as many today who actually have read Vitruvius' writings. He is most famous for his "Ten Books on Architecture" written sometime in the first century B.C. Most of this book consists of specific directions and guidelines for detailed architectural work.

[The whole book is available online at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20239/20239-h/29239-h.htm]


I will here only focus on the first chapter of the first book "The Education of the Architect". It is a fascinating text that I find extraordinary full of wisdom in a straightforward and simple way.

I would like to copy the whole chapter, but I have instead chosen to copy a few excerpts from the chapter, just to give a sense of what it contains, and maybe it will lead you to read more. The whole chapter is only a few pages long.

Vitruvius has a clear idea of what knowledge an architect should be equipped with. In Vitruvius text it  is possible to exchange "architect" with "designer".

The first paragraph in the chapter is this wonderful statement:

"1. The architect should be equipped with knowledge of many branches of study and varied kinds of learning, for it is by his judgement that all work done by the other arts is put to test. This knowledge is the child of practice and theory. Practice is the continuous and regular exercise of employment where manual work is done with any necessary material according to the design of a drawing. Theory, on the other hand, is the ability to demonstrate and explain the productions of dexterity on the principles of proportion."

It is clear that to Vitruvius the notion of "judgment" takes the position as the most important form of knowledge. It is through a designer's judgment that "all work done by the other arts is put to test". Judgment brings everything together. Judgment is the "child" of both practice and theory, both which Vitruvius eloquently explains. He presents the role of both practice and theory even more clear in the second paragraph where he states:

"2. It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been able to reach a position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied only upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the substance. But those who have a thorough knowledge of both, like men armed at all points, have the sooner attained their object and carried authority with them."

Vitruvius also mentioned more detailed knowledge needed but he returns to the larger areas, such as history, philosophy and medicine:

"5. A wide knowledge of history is requisite because, among the ornamental parts of an architect's design for a work, there are many the underlying idea of whose employment he should be able to explain to inquirers."

"7. As for philosophy, it makes an architect high-minded and not self-assuming, but rather renders him courteous, just, and honest without avariciousness. This is very important, for no work can be rightly done without honesty and incorruptibility. Let him not be grasping nor have his mind preoccupied with the idea of receiving perquisites, but let him with dignity keep up his position by cherishing a good reputation. These are among the precepts of philosophy."

"10. The architect should also have a knowledge of the study of medicine on account of the questions of climates (in Greek κλἱματα), air, the healthiness and unhealthiness of sites, and the use of different waters. For without these considerations, the healthiness of a dwelling cannot be assured."

Vitruvius is aware that his list of needed knowledge is long and ambitious, so he adds:

"11. Consequently, since this study is so vast in extent, embellished and enriched as it is with many different kinds of learning, I think that men have no right to profess themselves architects hastily, without having climbed from boyhood the steps of these studies and thus, nursed by the knowledge of many arts and sciences, having reached the heights of the holy ground of architecture."

and he adds later:

"For, in the midst of all this great variety of subjects, an individual cannot attain to perfection in each, because it is scarcely in his power to take in and comprehend the general theories of them."

Of course, for Vitruvius, this type of knowledge is only for men and only for a certain class of men. This is a consequence of his place in history and place. However, this chapter touches on so many issues that today are discussed when it comes to the education of designers, such as, breadth versus depth and practice versus theory. I find this text exciting and a good read for anyone who wants to engage in the question of what a designer should know!

Book note: Goffman, interaction and analytical artifact oriented HCI

I just received the book "Interaction Rituals" by Erving Goffman in the mail. I have not really read Goffman before but found the writing to resonate with my own thinking. Even though a lot of his work is in psychology and sociology it is possible to read his work as if it is about human-computer interaction and not only human-human interaction.

I found this great quote in the Introduction:

"I assume that the proper study of interaction is not the individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of different persons mutually present to one another. None the less, since it is individual actors who contribute the ultimate materials, it will always be reasonable to ask what general properties they must have if this sort of contribution is to be expected of them. What minimal model of the actor is needed if we are to wind him up, stick him amongst his fellows, and have an orderly traffic of behavior emerge?" (page 2).

It is possible to read this as if it is about human computer interaction. Contrary to most work in HCI today, which is almost completely focused on the "human" side of use and experience and not on the "computer" side, Goffman argues that it is possible to, or maybe even necessary to, develop models of the "ultimate material", which in this case would be also the artifact side of the interaction. It is "reasonable" to study what "general properties" the ultimate material must have to be able to contribute to the interaction in the way they do. I read this as similar to the approach that I have argued for in some articles, especially together with Lars-Erik Janlert, about the need and benefit of an analytical artifactist approach in HCI research.

Lars-Erik and I have since early 90s tried to develop a more analytical and artifact oriented approach to interaction studies (see refs and links below). In our 1997 article "The Character of Things" we examined, without using Goffman, the possibility of understanding human-artifact interaction as a form of human-human interaction. We experimented with ascribing artifacts "character" and "character traits" as a way to handle the overwhelming complexity arising by the manifold and diversity of new interactive products. We ended the article with the following paragraph:

"We believe that we must learn to better exploit the basic abilities human
beings have evolved in dealing with each other and with things in their
environment. One of these abilities is the use of characters. We propose
that in the design of computer artifacts: (1) more attention should be paid
to character, and the completeness and coherence of characteristics; and
(2) the design of characteristic features should be developed to better bring
out the (true) character of computer artifacts."

I am convinced that when interactive artifacts evolve and becomes more complex and with even richer behaviors it is generally a good idea to use human-human interaction as a model for inspiration. We deal with highly complex people on a daily basis, even people who are hostile, dishonest, etc. in their relations and behaviors towards us, but we still manage to interact to some extent. Of course it is important not to engage in such an analysis thinking that artifacts are humans. We are still far from a situation where human-human interaction can serve as prescriptive for any kind of more serious artifact design attempts, but they can certainly serve as a metaphorical inspiration for potential explanations and understandings.

[My reading of Goffman is when I write this restricted to just some small parts of the book "Interaction Rituals", so any form of mis-interpretation is possible.]

----------------------------------
Janlert, L-E. & Stolterman, E. (1997). The character of things. Design Studies Vol 18, No 3, July (1997), 297-314.
(Won the prize as the journals best article of 1997)

Lars-Erik Janlert and Erik Stolterman. 2010. Complex interaction. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 2, Article 8 (May 2010),

We also have one more article under review and one in progress on the same theme.

Design Thinking Imperialism and the Danger of Simplification

In the Economist there is an article, "Design companies are applying their skills to the voluntary and public sectors", that examines IDEO and the growing "design thinking" industry. The author, Schumpeter, makes the case that design is today moving from traditional "clients" of design to clients in governmental and non-profit organizations. The author sees this as part of a "revolution" that has almost signs of being imperialistic.
Schumpeter writes:

"IDEO is the standard-bearer of a broader revolution. Designers are becoming much more ambitious—perhaps imperialistic—about design thinking. In the United States the Stanford University Institute of Design, or D-School, which Mr Kelley founded in 2006, acts as an intellectual centre for the movement. The school helps businesses improve innovation and reduce complexity. It also encourages students to apply their skills to solving social problems, such as designing an inexpensive incubator for premature babies. In Britain the Design Council and the Royal Society of the Arts are also strong advocates of design thinking."

It is understandable that design can be seen as imperialistic with the attention and recognition it has received the last few years. Design and particularly 'design thinking' is often portrayed as the approach to apply to any problem where there is a lack of creativity, new ideas, or human oriented thinking. However, design as a human approach to inquiry and action is often presented in a simplistic and almost 'childish' way when it comes to what it is as a process, methods and tools. This article is an example of this. The author gives a summary of what is the core of the IDEO approach. To him it consists of three elements.

He writes:
"There are three main elements to IDEO’s “design thinking”. 
"The first is “lots of different eyes”. 
"The second is to look at problems from the consumer’s point of view"
"The third element is making everything tangible."
This description apparently captures the nature of 'design thinking'. This is to him the core of the approach that has been successful and that everyone is trying to copy. It is not surprising that he shows some hesitation about the approach when he writes:
"It is easy to mock all of this as bearded nonsense (if you are on the political right) or a ruse to divert attention from cuts in essential services (if you are on the left). .......Nevertheless, there are good reasons for giving the new fashion a chance."
To me there are two observations to be made from this article. First is that when design (or 'design thinking') spreads to larger and new groups of people less educated and trained  in design, it inevitably looses in richness and is slowly almost disintegrating as a unique approach. Design faces the danger of becoming a 'common sense' approach that anyone can do.
The second observation is that proponents of design have to very careful in 'overselling' design and explaining it in a simplistic fashion. Both 'overselling' and simplification leads without a doubt to failure, disappointment and the consequence will be a serious backlash for design. If all of us, who do believe in design as a powerful human approach to inquiry and action, different from other approaches such as science and art, that can produce unique outcomes; if we are not careful in how we present and explain design, we and design will fail. Design is an activity that is complex, rich, highly dependent on the competence, knowledge, skill and character of designers. It is a process that requires well developed judgment and ability to discern quality and to research and understand complex contexts and the desires and needs of people and organizations in order to create something 'not-yet-existing'. It is an expensive process that takes time. If this process is simplified into three elements that lack depth, richness and any form of practical relevance, then design will never be successful in any 'imperialistic' sense, instead it will be disregarded and ridiculed for not providing what it promises. 

Book note: "Convivial Toolbox--generative research for the front end of design"

I just received a copy of a quite new book "Convivial Toolbox--generative research for the front end of design" by Elizabeth Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers. It is exciting to see that more books on design are being published, and especially books that are not only simple "how-to" but also present a philosophical and theoretical position.

Sanders and Stappers is doing this well in many ways. The book is first of all nicely designed with great paper! The book is full of interesting design schemas, many of which are quite insightful and interesting. I have yet to read the book carefully and I am not sure I will, not because I do not find it useful but because I am quite aware of most of what the book covers. To me the most interesting elements of the book are the elaborate schemas that in some cases are rich and dense and provide the reader with a lot of insights about the topic in a designerly relevant way. I will definitely use some of those schemas in my own teaching.

So, the book covers in a good way how early design can be supported by generative research. It gives examples and cases on how to do it. I think the book can be useful for anyone who is searching for such support.

At the same time, I find the layout of the book confusing. Numerous different sections, colors, and sidebars. The layout is structured as if it is a basic textbook with readers who need to be guided in detail in their reading, with "hints" and other typical features. It becomes confusing and difficult to read, at least for me.

I was quite intrigued by the title "Convivial Toolbox" since I am well aware of Illich writings and of his ideas. I was hoping that the authors would in a stronger sense build and relate their ideas to the notion on conviviality, but that did not really happen. For instance, to what extent and in what way are the tools described in the book better suited for convivial design than others, and in what way is conviviality supported by the process presented? I was looking for a final reflection or discussion of that but could not find it.

Book note: "Back to the rough ground" by Joseph Dunne

In our research group where we study design practice, we read relevant texts each week this summer and talk about them. Yesterday we read the last chapter, the Epilogue, from "Back to the Rough Ground" by Joseph Dunne.

I read this book when it was first published and I keep coming back to it. When it comes to scholarly examinations about what practice is all about, what competence is, what rationality is, there is no other book that can deliver so much wisdom.

Yesterday, re-reading the Epilogue (which I have read many times before), I was again completely overwhelmed with the way Dunne handles this difficult topic. Some paragraphs are so good, it hurts physically to read them!

Book note: "101 Design Methods" and the problematic success of design

I just received my copy of the book "101 Design Methods -- A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation inYour Organization" by Vijay Kumar. This is one of quite many similar books that have been published the last few years, that is, a book that contains a large number of design methods nicely but briefly described.

I have always like this type of book even though I never really use them myself. The same is true for "101 Design Methods". The book contains many of the popular design methods that are used today and Kumar has organized these methods by providing "A Model of the Design Innovation Process".

This model is, in my words, a schema that helps designers think about the design process, what activities are involved,  and how the different activities relate to each other. It is a nice schema that invites for further exploration.

Kumar does not discuss design in terms of phases or steps, instead he talks about "Seven Modes of the Design Innovation Process". For each of the methods, Kumar then presents benefits, input, output, and when to use. He also presents "what it does" and "how it works". Everything is well presented and the methods are pedagogically introduced, each on two pages.

As for many of the similar books that introduce methods and techniques in a condensed form, this book also have the same issues. I believe that for someone who is already trained in design and has internalized designerly thinking and is experienced in the design process, a book like this works well. The book then becomes a handbook, a repository, a memory support, an inspirational source for when a designer has to select how to approach a task. For a designer, the descriptions are enough to inspire how to do something based on previous experience, and then they can adapt and adopt the method to the specific situation and need. The two page description reminds the designer of potential methods and also about the core aspects of the method.

However, for someone who is not trained in design, who does not think in a designerly way, the book does not give the same support. Instead, it may even be misleading in the sense that it portraits design as a process of activities that all seem fairly straightforward and "simple". It may appear that given the situation at hand you just decide what you need, or what "mode" you are in, and then uses one of the methods for that purpose.  However, this is not the way design works. The complexity of even the "simplest" design situation and process never means that there are obvious choices of methods or techniques.

What we face today with the enormous success of design as a solution to most problems, such as 'innovation' in Kumar's book, is that design is being transformed from a process requiring competence and skills that takes time and effort to achieve into a "quick fix" approach where it is all about picking the right tools. It is as if we would take a traditional carpenters workshop, pick 25 out of the several hundreds of tools in there, arrange them conceptually in relation to what a carpenter does, and expect anyone to be able to do carpentry and achieve high quality furniture. We all know that is not possible. To be a skilled carpenter means to know what tool to use, when and how to use them, and to recognize improvement and quality of outcome. None of these skills are intrinsically part of any method or tool. The skill to be able to think and act like a carpenter is what carpentry is all about.

So, even though I am very happy with the way design has reached the status of today, that all companies and organizations want to be design thinking organizations, I am less happy with the way that this success is manifested in books. The book described above is definitely needed and is a great contribution to many designers. But what we need is more books that can help people to understand design, what it means to be a designer, that can support them in their struggle to develop as a designer. We need books about design that accepts that it is not a "quick fix", not a question of using the right tools, not a question of selecting the right method, but that design is a way of thinking and approaching the world with the purpose of change. And we need books that can do this in an intelligible way that intrigues non-designers and make them understand that the effort needed is worth it if they want to become a designer.

The Evil of Design

Even though I am happy to see the wonderful push for design thinking and a designerly approach today in academia and in business, it is also a bit disturbing to see the lack of critical thinking about design. Design as an approach is today by many seen as the silver bullet to almost any kind of problem. A design approach is considered to be able to deal with any kind of situation. I do agree that design as an approach is powerful, maybe more so than many believe even among those who advocate it. I do agree that many issues today should be approached in a designerly way. But it is also crucial to remember that design as an approach is not inherently good.

Almost all things that scare us and make our lives difficult and dangerous are designed. Some of the most wonderful examples of great design are also considered to be manifestations of evil. Humans design wars, genoside, weapons of destruction, and maybe even more extraordinary but less obvious designs aimed at suppressing people (such as political, governing or business structures), sometimes even in combination with wonderful 'user' experiences that makes people appreciate being oppressed (what a great design!).

In this new emerging era of design thinking and designerly approaches it is important to remember that design is only an approach--it is a process. It is a powerful approach, but there is no guarantor that the outcome will be good design and there is no guarantee that the design process will not lead to evil designs. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the character of the designer. Values and beliefs guides and shapes the judgements made by the designer. Developing design competence therefore means developing once personal character as well as once design thinking ability. 

Anyone engaging in design in a serious way therefore has to be constantly aware of and reflect on the 'nature' of design and also be highly critical of any simple versions of design that promises processes that will lead to good results in some 'automatic' prescriptive guaranteed way. Critical thinking is as important in design as in science.

[In the book "The Design Way" these issues are discussed in the chapters "The Evil of Design" and "The Guarantor-of-Design (g.o.d.)"]

DRS 2014 – Design’s Big Debates

Since I am involved in the organization of the DRS 2014 conference, I am posting some information about it hear. We are aiming to develop the conference to even more become the premier international general design conference. We are changing many aspects fo the conference to both better reach a broader audience while also enhance the quality of submissions. So, read and plan!!



DRS 2014 – Design’s Big Debates
Preliminary Call for Participation
Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19, 2014
http://drs2014.org

Design Research Society’s 2014 conference invites you to engage in discussions and debates on the future directions of design and design research. We welcome you to join us in Umeå, Sweden, June 16-19.

We believe there is a shared discourse in design, one that includes all areas of design research, and that is of vital importance for our understanding and development of the foundations of design. This discourse is something we share and cultivate over long periods time, as it tells stories of past, present and future trajectories of design and its role in society.

With an ever-increasing demand for academic specialization and increasing numbers of highly specialized conferences, there is now a bigger need than ever for a venue where the design research community can address significant challenges that cut across domains and big issues that will influence the way our field as a whole develops. The main purpose of the DRS 2014 conference is to foster and support a shared design discourse. By focusing on key big issues in design, we want to create a forum where the questions that have the potential to change the way we think and do design – its philosophy, theory, practice, methodology, education, profession and history – will be discussed and debated.

To create this platform for discussions and debates we want to open up a wider set of possibilities for engaging and participating. Thus, the DRS 2014 conference will make use of multiple publication and presentation formats, including both established ones such as ‘papers’ and new ones such as ‘conversations’, each with it's own submission and review process. Now is the time to begin asking yourself 'What do you think are the big debates in design?' What would you like this exciting conversation to be like to really matter to you – and, how will you contribute to make that happen?’

DRS 2014 is hosted by Umeå Institute of Design, Umeå University. The conference week will give you an opportunity to experience the nightless nights and sunny days of the Swedish Midsummer, and the many cultural events of Umeå, Cultural Capital of Europe 2014.


Warm welcome!

Johan Redström, Erik Stolterman and Anna Valtonen (General Chairs)
Carl DiSalvo and Jamer Hunt (Conversations and Debates Chairs)
Youn-kyung Lim and Kristina Niedderer (Papers Chairs)


Preliminary deadlines:
Papers: October 1st, 2013
Conversations: November 1st, 2013

More information:
DRS 2014, http://www.drs2014.org/
Design Research Society, http://www.designresearchsociety.org/
Umeå Institute of Design, http://www.uid.umu.se/
Umeå 2014: http://www.umea2014.se/

Book note: About design, methods, and Paul Feyerabend

As a PhD student that spent a lot of time reading and studying philosophy I came across the work of Paul Feyerabend, in particular his book "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge" (1975).

As someone who at that time was already fascinated with the notion of rationality and its relation to method, I found Feyerabend to be exciting and inspring. He made a strong case against the belief that there is a "correct" method that we can trust when it comes to the production of scientific knowledge. He took a strong position against methods in any form  or shape and advocated for an anarchistic stance when it came to methods for knowledge production.

Feyerabend developed a strong critique against all the typical claims and arguments supporting the primacy of a scientific method. He argues against correspondence, coherency, falsification, etc. Instead he argued for "anything goes". His main idea was that as soon as we define a method and define what constitute the correct way to go about doing things, we constrain both ourself and what we can achieve. A given method can only, with accompanying measures of success, lead to certain outcomes. In Feyerabends world that means that methods becomes both oppressive and limiting. When we are only allowed to examine the world in a given way, we reduce our possibilities to find new understandings and explanations that may be richer.

Feyerabend's work is relevant to me today not for his contribution to science studies and philosophy (even though I truly believe he is still more than relevant) but for the possibility to read his book as a wonderful examination and comment on design. Almost everything that Feyerabend discusses in his book is applicable to any discussion of design and particularly the design process and its relation to rationality and methods.

There has been a lot of (valid) critique of Feyerabend's philosophy. Feyerabend does not deal with a number of critical issues that emerges if his ideas are taken seriously. He is famous for almost ignoring the question of what makes a scientific result better than something else while his argument against methods is that they do not necessarily lead to "better" results. The core of this critique is the question how he can argue that something can lead to "better" results when there is no criteria for what constitutes better. To me this is a serious critique of his philosophy, even though I do think there are good answers to the criticism. Anyway, if we instead read Feyerabend as if he is writing about design, it may be easier to address the question of "progress" and "better" since design does not, as science, deal with the universal but with the particular. At the particular level we can always construct measure of success that are relevant and useful while not applicable when it comes to the universal. (This is a fairly long argument that I will not engage in now.)

My only problem with Feyerabend at the moment is that I have not read the book in any detail for a long time. After having gone back to it recently for other purposes, I do realize that it may be one of the most inspring philosophical books when it come to the question of the rationality of design practice and methods.

Producing knowledge by design for design

The field of design, particularly the philosophy and theory of design, is evolving fast today. Over the last thirty years there has been a plethora of writings about the relation between science/research and design. One of the most contested questions has been to what extent design as a process of inquiry and action also is a legitimate process of knowledge production. It is not strange that the question arises. Science and design have distinct and different purposes as approaches. Jonas Löwgren says it clearly in his recent ACM Interactions article when he writes "The essence of research is to produce knowledge, and the essence of design is to produce artifacts." This is a clean and simple distinction, even though we know it is possible to find examples that makes this definition more complex, but Löwgren states that even if there are other purposes involved in research today, "the knowledge-production purpose is primary".

The same can be said about design of course. Design can have many different purposes but at the core it is all about the process of imagination and production of artifacts (systems, symbols, services, etc), or with other words, it is all about changing reality. Even though the discourse around design as a valid form of knowledge production approach has grown, it is not until lately that we are seeing some real advances. Unfortunately, a lot of energy has been devoted to develop definitions that are compliant with the existing understanding of knowledge production as it is practiced within the scientific tradition.  This has led to an outsider perspective on design, that is, design is seen through the scientific definitions, understandings and concepts of knowledge and method. Less energy has been devoted to start from within, with the ambition to develop an insider perspective--a perspective that takes it starting point in a real and deep understanding of design as its own tradition and not seen as "not science".

I made the argument in my article "The nature of design practice and implications for design research" (ref below) that one of the common mistakes done when it comes to design theory is to use an outsider perspective (particularly with a stance in science).  Anyway, it is clear to me that we are entering a more productive stage in the development of design philosophy when the insider approach is becoming more common. For instance, the article in ACM Interactions by Bill Gavers and John Bowers on "Annotated Portfolios" and Löwgren article mentioned above are great examples of this emerging realization that design has a real role to play in knowledge production and that the formulation of what that role is has to be done from within design grounded in a deep understanding of design. 

A new understanding of design as a knowledge producing approach can be established  but not by trying to make design into something it is not. This means that the road forward is not to make or force design to become more scientific or to use scientific methods, instead it means that we have to acknowledge and externalize what the core strength of design is. This is what Gaver, Bowers and Löwgren is doing so well. Löwgren states this well in his article when he concludes:

"To conclude, I strongly support Gaver and Bowers in claiming that design practice has a place in HCI research today, and that the researcher can add knowledge value by providing annotations in addition to the artifacts. My own contribution here is to recognize the proposal for annotated portfolios as an intermediate-level knowledge practice among other such practices. To me, those practices appear to be promising paths toward fruitful academic discourse and collaborative knowledge production that accommodates the nature of design practice without undue “scientistic” reduction."

This is exactly the way forward. However, this is also a challenge of magnitude since it requires anyone who engages with this issue to be equally well prepared in the philosophy of science as well as in the philosophy of design. Even if we are making progress, there are still few who have the ability to make thoughtful contributions based on such double competence, but with a new generation of thinkers who see it as natural to be equally competent in science and design there is hope.

----------------------
Löwgren has a great list of references in his article. To me, these selected references are examples of this new and growing understanding of design as research. I am pleased to see my own writings among the ones I selected :-)

Gaver, B. and Bowers, J. Annotated portfolios. interactions 19, 4 (2012), 40–49.

Stolterman, E. The nature of design practice and implications for design research. Int. J. Design 2, 1 (2008), 55–65.

Gaver, W. What should we expect from research through design? Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, 2012, 937–946.

Höök, K. and Löwgren, J. Strong concepts: Intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction (2012).

Stolterman, E. and Wiberg, M. Concept-driven interaction design research. Human-Computer Interaction 25, 2 (2010), 95–118.

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....

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.

Book Note: "Observing the user experience" by Goodman, Kuniavsky, and Moed

There are many books that in one way or another describe how to do interaction design (broadly defined). In most cases I do not find these book very interesting for one simple reason. The reason is that they are neither inspiring when it comes to theory, or practical when it comes to guidance. Books like these, mainly labeled as textbooks, are what I see as "in-between" books, that is, they present ideas and theory in a way that is far from grounded and foundational, and they present guidance that is not based on real insights and knowledge about practice.

I just got a copy of the second edition of "Observing the user experience--a practitioner's guide to user research" by Elizabeth Goodman, Mike Kuniavsky and Andrea Moed (Morgan Kaufmann, 2012). To me, this is a book that is not in-between. It is "a practitioner's guide" written in a language and at a level that is very useful. Each aspect of user research is presented in a simple and clear way with concrete and practical guidelines on how to do it. I find the book excellent for anyone who is new to the field and who not just want to know how important user research is but how to actually do it. The authors stay away from making large claims and from relating the practical guidance to more or less developed theoretical frameworks.

However, I think it is important that anyone who uses a book like this complements it other readings that in a solid intellectual way examines the broader aspects of practice and its relationship to theoretical traditions and paradigms.

How to stay competent in the field of interaction design

I am at the moment in Seattle for a few days doing interviews for our NSF project. The project is mainly focused on how professionals understand and use methods and tools. The study I am doing at the moment is aimed at the examination of professional competence and especially on what professionals do to stay competent over time. So far I have done four interviews with highly skilled and experienced UX professionals. They all have impressive experience and competence. It is fascinating with professionals at this level, they are confident, they know that they are competent, and they can explain why.  They also know how the industry works and what it takes to stay ahead and to survive in this competitive environment.

In my interviews, these professionals reveal their way of thinking about competence and what they do to stay competent in a rapidly developing field. Not staying ahead of the field, not knowing what is going on, not engaging with colleagues and networks to constantly learn, mean that you will not be the one who will be asked to lead the next project or to work on new creative initiatives. It is a competitive world where a large part of the professional competence is about understanding the corporate environment than knowing the correct tool or method.

The thoughtfulness of these professionals, something they reveal have developed over time, and their insights on what it means to be competent is something that every young professional in the field need to know. I hope that over time I will be able to write brief reports on this ongoing research. I am quite sure that the results will be highly valuable for professionals interested in developing their career. But I also think that the findings are extremely valuable for any employer who is interested in creating a culture where each professional can grow to become the best they can in a way that fits their individual personality and competence.

The interviews will continue. If you are interested in this topic, let me know, either as a professional (maybe to let me interview you) or as an employer who wants to learn more about how highly skilled professionals really think about themselves and their professional environment.