Design is underpinned by the
designer’s ability to not only
look, but also to see. To look at
a group of adults talking in a
bar and see an opportunity to
change behaviors; to look at a
child engrossed in a game and
see “flow.” The act of observation
is not unique to design or design
thinking, and design research
is not the sole domain of the
designer. It is in the seeing, in
the sense-making, and in the
questioning of what is observed
that design sets itself apart.
Researchers, academics, marketers, and engineers all look
around themselves to gather
information. They measure,
study, and observe. The distinguishing quality of design lies
not in this act of looking but
in the perspective gained—a
perspective firmly rooted in
the shoes of the customer. And
the answer to understanding
that distinction lies not in the
observation, but in the first two
qualities noted above— deconstruction and synthesis.
The second missing characteristic is iteration. Whether
sketching or prototyping, design
processes are inherently iterative. But iteration is a fundamental component of most generative and creative endeavors.
An engineer designing a bridge
or a ship will iterate through
many, many revisions. A scientist will test and revise his or
her hypothesis; a management
consultant will explore iterations of a business model.
A lifetime ago, as a consultant statistician, I remember
developing, testing, and discarding dozens of models for
how a new transit option in
Sydney would affect ticket sales
on public transport.
Iteration is everywhere. It is
in the parallel exploration of a
multiplicity of ideas—and the
resultant power of that exploration—that design lends itself to
solving complex problems.
types of problems, the depth
and extent to which these qualities reside in the designer also
form a critical factor in the success or failure of a project.
But in the same way that
the existence of good and bad
engineers does not stop engineering from being an excellent
approach to solving particular
types of problems, the existence of good and bad designers
does not stop these qualities of
design from being particularly
relevant in the solution of complex issues.
Conclusion
Design is, at heart, an approach
to solving problems. In particular, design is well suited
to the solution of problems for
which there is no incremental,
step-wise path. Complex problems require an approach that
decries constraints and linear
improvement, looking instead to
make intuitive leaps and arrive
at breakthrough solutions.
The qualities of design
described here allow for these
intuitive leaps to take place
through the application of synthesis and abductive thinking.
They allow for constraints to be
tested and discarded through
the application of deconstruction. They allow for ambiguity
to be embraced and explored
through a process that inherently supports multiplicity,
and also through critique. And
they allow for an understanding of the end recipient of the
products and services under
design to provide opportunities
to reframe, broaden, and define
the problem in ways that lead
to more meaningful solutions
for those recipients.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my colleague
and friend Janna DeVylder for her
help in clarifying the ideas contained
in this article and Todd Warfel for
reviewing and providing feedback on
the article during its development.
Caveat
These qualities—
deconstructionism, abduction and synthesis, multiplicity, critique, and
empathy—are not the sum total
of design. At the same time,
there is also a designer to take
into consideration. So while
these qualities of design make it
well suited to solving particular
AbOut the AuthOr
Steve Baty is principal of
Meld Studios, a Sydney-
based design studio. He is
a strategist with more than
September + October 2010
DOi: 10.1145/1836216.1836235
© 2010 ACM 1072-5220/10/0900 $10.00
