My Design Philosophy

December 14, 2017

Design is a unique way of life and a practice which can be found in almost all the professions out there. But what exactly is design and how does one go about it?

In this paper, I attempt to articulate my own views on design. I articulate some of the characteristics which I believe are central to design and also how I approach design as a practice.

In the end I also talk about some of the limitations of my own design philosophy and the things I believe will change in my design philosophy over the course of the next few years.

What is a Design Philosophy?

Every design practitioner has their own understanding of design. Similar to Friedman's notion of design theory [1], a design philosophy is a tool, an articulation medium through which one can express their own understanding of design.

It encompasses questions like What is design? How does it happen? Who does it? Where? Why? [10] This is not an exhaustive list, but every design philosophy articulation touches upon all of these aspects. Every design philosophy is unique to the designer. Although two designers may say similar things, the abstractions, analogies and metaphors they use is what truly makes it remarkable to read. This argument would include writings as those of Vitruvius also a form of a design philosophy. [2]

In paper, I articulate my own understanding of design and put forward my own design philosophy. I make no claim that that this is the only way or the right way to design. It is just a way I believe in temporarily.

What is Design?

I view design as a perspective to a situation or context.

There are ways to observe and ways to act on a situation. Science and Art, would be examples of two other perspectives to a situation, each having their own way. [3]

However, there are some unique characteristics about the nature of design. There are two key components, intent and design space.

Consider a fast flowing river as a design space. It exists as an entity but is ever changing. Now consider a person rafting down the river.

Several people have done it before, but this person will have a unique experience and approach while doing it.

This is an example which can be traced to nature of design problems Rittel talks about [4].

It is impossible to have the same process to those before, and despite having similar intentions one will navigate these waters in a way never seen before.

Design is navigating these waters.

Two rafters at different locations on the river will navigate it differently. In this case, despite the same design space (the river) and intent (getting to the end) we will end up with radically different approaches to navigation of the waters by each of them.

Although the outcome at the end might be similar, the approach is what separates a good designer from an average one. One might not be more logical than the other, but one will be more reasonable. [4]

There is no process to design. But there is always a clear purpose behind it [4], this is what separates it from art. In this case, even not performing an action will lead you down the river, albeit in not the most comfortable way. Here,

Choosing not to do anything is also a design activity.

Design space and intent are key outcomes of problem framing [5] and applied during problem solving. They make a strong argument for design being seen as problem framing instead of problem solving.

Design Space

What is this design space you talk about? What you think factors your design is your design space. This is could be expanded to include everything and contracted to just one item.

For example, in the case of rafting mentioned earlier, the design space would include the river, the raft, paddles, people, rocks and everything a person takes into consideration as they paddle down the river.

The design space is defined by the designer. It is one of the outcome of problem framing. It is a subset of the universe and the defines the scope of the designers work. It is this space where the designer lets their intent run wild in search of the best possible design. It is the answer to what are we designing for and what is not being designed for. By this definition, every participant in the design process is part of the design space. Their biases, predispositions, culture and history are all part of the design space as well. [10]

If the design space is too broad, designers end up spending too much time thinking about every small factor that might affect the outcome and end up nowhere. If it is too narrow, designers end up making assumptions about a lot of the crucial components.

What you think factors your design is your design space.

Furthermore, I see three lenses of framing a design space. Each lens takes different aspects into consideration and requires good designer judgement to be applied.

These lenses are inspired by the three paradigms seen in HCI [11] over the years and I believe it is a good framework to articulate a design space. Using the appropriate paradigm to frame a design space leads to more efficient design outcomes.

Action Space

Design spaces resulting from problem framing which account only for a user, their mental activity and machine/object they interact with.

Framing of such design spaces was common when HCI was in its infancy, influenced greatly by human factors and engineering. It is also applied by design practitioners today, mainly by junior designers, when designing smaller parts of a larger system.

I see framing action spaces as tools which help you avoid boiling the ocean. Navigation or design in a action space is often done by one or two designers often with rapid speed.

Referring to the rafting example above, an action space could be the boat, paddle along with the human using it. It is a hard design problem as there are so many ways to design for this situation, but the considerations made make it characteristic of an action space.

Context Space

Context space refers to the second paradigm lens. Here design spaces are scoped when a designer asks questions like - What is the context of the action being performed?

Context is key in such design spaces. Problem framing the whole experience is key when defining the design space. It tries to account for all factors which would influence the action in context.

As it considers an experience, defining the beginning and closure of an experience becomes central to such design spaces and keeps them from spiralling out of control.

For the example of rafting above, the context space could take into consideration the section of river the the user is in, weather conditions and team dynamics inside the raft.

UX practitioners in the industry commonly practice design in such spaces. I see this as an effective space when there is a team which are focussed on improving a specific part of a users daily life.

World Space

World space, inspired by the third paradigm, is one which takes a step back to not only the big picture but more often, the whole picture. It is a design space which considers political implications and empowerment of stakeholders.

It is a lens where power balances in society are accounted for. It asks questions considering the whole world as the design space. It considers the design to be part of the culture and also responsible for shaping culture.

Referring the rafting example above, a world design space could consider the effect of rafting on the flora and fauna of the ecosystem and how the presence of rafting has changed the river to an intended outcome or an unintended one.

Leaders of large organizations who take a design approach find themselves coming up with such design spaces after problem framing. It is one of the key reasons of design thinking being pushed in modern day leadership.

My approach is to look for answers for the action space, informed by the context space, which comes from meticulous understanding of the world space.

Intent

Scoping a design space is a part of the design approach. [5] But simply understanding the waters doesn't guarantee a smooth ride. Purposeful strokes while rafting is what is needed to achieve that. It comes from the intent, which is part of the designer and the team.

Intent is the driving force behind any designerly approach.

It is this purposeful action which separates design from art.

Intent primarily stems from the designer's repertoire. A designer's repertoire consists of all the experiences they have had, and how they use it make make better judgement. [10] This includes tools, concepts, learnings and personal goals as well. On that note, I do see intent having two parts to it.

The first one is a slow changing core, the second one is flexible clay which is remodelled everytime the designer engages in design activity. [6]

Core principles

Core principles are the foundations on which a designers philosophy is built upon.

These are the slow changing values a designer will have when navigating a design space. Through design activities designers become more aware about their own core principles and use it as the tool to form their own approaches to design. [6]

My own core principles have changed over the couple years of my design practice. In the present day,

  1. Function first - I'm focussed around being function first, diving into a critical inquiry about the why of the product.
  2. Scalable - I try to be scalable, expanding design insights and solutions to usage in a wide variety of applications.
  3. Timeless - I strive to push for timeless design, where design solutions are able to function for long periods of time.

My personal core principles have changed over time and I expect them to change further. There are not right core principles and I believe this is one of the most under appreciated aspect of design.

Situational Intent

The second part to intent when navigating a design space is situational intent. As the name suggests, it refers to everything which situationally effects the intent of the designer or design team.

This is the flexible part of clay in the intent of the designer. Situational intent can be talked about in length, but briefly put, it would include the driving force which is situational and unique to the design project at hand.

Situational intent is the outcome of a rapid search through the designers repertoire. [7]

It is common to see beginner designers struggle to muster up with clear situational intent to design because of lack of a repertoire. But after having amassed a healthy repertoire, a healthy situational intent would happen more commonly, leading to better decisions on the designers when framing design processes and choosing the appropriate design activities. [10]

Design as a practice requires the interaction of both, the design space and the intent. Design practice is this application of intent on the design space, which ends up with digital, measurable outcomes from analog systems. Navigation of a design space is hard.

Designers find themselves with overwhelming but insufficient information to move forward.

When navigating these design spaces with intent I see design having two crucial questions to answer at every step:

  1. What Matters?
  2. What can we do about it?

What Matters?

Is an umbrella inquiry into everything that has happened so far and what is happening currently. It is taking a step back to re-evaluate and verify if the actions match the intent. Asking this question at every decision point helps a designer problem frame for the next steps to be taken.

What can we do about it?

Is the inquiry into what follows. It is asked once there is agreement on the problem framing. It is about directing the intent. Trade Offs are made when this question is asked, as design decisions have to satisfy the primary stakeholders which might not be the best design direction to take.

Design Outcome

So what happens after designers have intently navigated a design space for a period of time? What do we get? What is the end product?

Most design activities might culminate with an artifact, digital or physical. More valuable design outcomes are those which lead to more informed design activity in the future. First is change.

Every design practice will lead to change.

Intended and also unintended change. Not only has the designer introduced a small ripple in the existing world by introducing this design, they themselves have changed by this experience. [7] It is now part of their repertoire.

Based on the nature of the design space and the approach, there will be several single-loop and double loop learning experiences the designer will have. This is a key characteristic of the design practice where lessons are learnt through reflection in action and also through reflection on action. [7]

Any design practice also furthers the horizon for others designer to see and think about. There is a always a new unknown after the unknown at hand is explored. One of the outcomes of design is pushing this horizon to further distances.

Ultimately, I completely agree with Heskett when he states that "Design matters profoundly to us all in innumerable ways and represents an area of huge, underutilized potential in life." [8]

Limitations of this design philosophy

This design philosophy is in no way all-encompassing at all and probably has a lot of holes in it.

In the future I see myself expanding and articulating the paradigm of design spaces in a better way.

I do see design as more of navigation, an activity which requires constant back and forth of problem-framing and solving. In the future I expect to have better analogies and metaphors to express this. [7]

I see this paper as a stepping stone in my design education.

In reflection, I didn't feel ready to articulate all the messy concepts in my head. They need some more marination and experience. I tried to see where decentering the human [9] would fit into my design philosophy, but I have yet to develop a thinking along those lines.

I am certain that looking back at this paper after a year would prompt a rewrite.

Conclusion

I see design as more of a navigational activity with a perspective where a designer is an explorer who is in uncharted waters.

Along his way he might find several places to rest, with some better than the other. However, design is that quest to find the next frontier in the fog ahead, believing that there is always a better place ahead.

As the designer proceeds, he understands the waters better and is able to understand what he is dealing with (problem space) and his experiences help him develop the right judgement for the steps he should take (intent).

References

  1. Friedman, Ken - Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods. Design Studies Vol 24 No. 6 November 2003
  2. Vitruvius, Ten Books on Architecture, Book 1
  3. Cross, Nigel - Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science. Design Issues. Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer, 2001), pp. 49-55
  4. Rittel, Horst - The reasoning of Designers. 1987
  5. Hatchuel, Armand. "Towards Design Theory and expandable rationality: The unfinished program of Herbert Simon." Journal of management and governance 5.3 (2001): 260-273.
  6. Nozick, Robert. Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations. Simon and Schuster, 1990.
  7. Schön, D. "The design process. IN: Varieties of thinking: Essays from Harvard's philosophy of education research centre, edited by VA Howard." (1990).
  8. Heskett, John - Design: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Press UK July 2005
  9. "Decentering the human in the design of collaborative cities." Design Issues 32.3 (2016): 42-54.
  10. Nelson, Harold G., and Erik Stolterman. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Educational Technology Publications, 2003.
  11. Harrison, Steve, Deborah Tatar, and Phoebe Sengers. "The three paradigms of HCI." Alt. Chi. Session at the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems San Jose, California, USA. 2007.