1st-gen 2nd-gen design methods design methods

Approach Design as optimization Design as argument Problem solving Goal framing

Linear or waterfall Multi-level feedback Domain Science Design

Design as Design as part of science its own domain Sciences of the artificial Designing for evolution Neutral, objective Political, subjective Descriptive Speculative

“What is…” “What could be…”

Time horizon Present Future

Knowledge Factual Instrumental

Adapted from Horst Rittel by Chanpory Rith [ 20]

What Do These Changes Mean
for Design Education?

As design moves into the age of biology and shifts from a mechanical-object ethos to an organic-systems ethos, we should reflect on how best to prepare for coming changes in practice. At a recent conference on design education, Meredith Davis described “the distance between where we are going in the practice of graphic design and longstanding assumptions about design education [ 23].” (The cover story, which is based on her talk, can be found on p. 28.)

Davis (building on Poggenpahl and Habermas) distinguished between two models of practice, “know how” and “know that,” “design as a craft and design as a discipline.” This distinction parallels the distinction between hand-craft and service-craft that Pangaro and I propose above. Davis asserted “college design curricula, and the pedagogies through which we deliver them, are based almost exclusively on the first model of practice, on know-how, and don’t acknowledge issues that drive emerging practices.”

Davis’s argument and framing are closely related to changes described in this article. Changes that Davis advocates are consistent with the spirit of the new ethos and aimed at helping designers grasp the nature of organic-systems work and preparing them for practice in the age of biology.

Of course, not all designers welcome the coming change. Form giving remains a large part of design practice and design education. Will some designers be able to continue to practice primarily as form givers? That seems likely. But already a schism is developing both in design practice and design education, as individuals and institutions choose to focus on either form giving or on planning. It remains to be seen if one person, one firm, or one school can bridge the divide and excel at both.

[ 17] Walker, Stuart. Sustainable by Design: Explorations in Theory and Practice. London: Earthscan, 2006.

[ 18] Liedtka, Jeanne. “Strategy as Design.” Rotman Management, Winter 2004, 12–15.

Stance Mode

[ 19] Camillus, John C. “Strategy as a Wicked Problem.” Harvard Business Review, May 2008, 99–106.

[ 20] Rith, Chanpory. Personal communication with author, 2 July 2005.

Paul Pangaro and I have also noted that Rittel’s framing of first- and second-generation design methods parallels Heinz von Foerster’s framing of first- and second-order cybernetics. Von Foerster described a shift of focus in cybernetics from mechanism to language and from systems observed (from the outside) to systems-that-observe (observing systems).

[ 21] Pangaro, Paul. Personal communications with author, 2000–2008.

2nd-order cybernetics

Double-loop

Learning loops Participating in conversation Observing systems Observer in frame Participants co-create goals Recognizes subjectivity

Adapted from Paul Pangaro [ 21]

In 1958 von Foerster formed the Biological Computer Laboratory at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. He brought in Ross Ashby as a professor and later Gordon Pask and Humberto Maturana as visiting research professors. The lab focused on problems of self-organizing systems and provided an alternative to the more mechanistic approach of AI followed at MIT by Marvin Minsky and others [ 22]. In a way, von Foerster anticipated the shift from mechanical-object ethos to organic-systems ethos in computing, design, and perhaps the larger culture.

1st-order cybernetics
Single-loop
Control loops
Regulating in environment
Observed systems
Observer outside frame
Observer describes goal
Assumes objectivity

[ 22] Müller, Albert. “A
Brief History of the BCL:
Heinz von Foerster
and the Biological
Computer Laboratory,”
Originally published in
Österreichische Zeitschrift
für eschichts wissen-
schaften 11, no. 1 (2000):
9-30. Translated by Jeb
Bishop and since repub-
lished in “An Unfinished
Revolution?”

[ 23] Davis, Meredith. “Toto, I’ve got a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore…” Presentation at the AIGA Design Education Conference, Boston, April 2008.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Hugh Dubberly manages a consultancy focused on making services and software easier to use through interaction design and information design. As vice president he was responsible for design and production of Netscape’s Web services. He was at Apple for 10 years, where he managed graphic design and corporate identity and co-created the Knowledge Navigator series of videos. Dubberly also founded an interactive media department at Art Center and has taught at San Jose State, IIT/ID, and Stanford.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without the fee, provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on services or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. © ACM 1072-5220/08/0900 $5.00

September + October 2008

DOI 10.1145/1390085.1390092