C3
F3

Formal picture of mental picture

Analysis

Frame insights “Aha”

Synthesis Explore concepts “Eureka”

Make plans

C2
F2

Mental picture

Know

Hypothesis ?

Make

Know user

Know context

Realize offerings
-Prototype
-Pilot
-Launch

C1
F1

Actual world

Research

Implement !

Delivery

Context

Form

Real

Alexander model (Reprinted by permission of the publisher)

Kumar innovation model

Writing about the relationship of science to management, Stafford Beer presented a more elaborate model of the move from cases to consensus, from particular to general. He points out that several levels of models are involved [ 2].

At the beginning of his career, Christopher Alexander described a six-part model. It differs from the bridge model in two important respects. First, Alexander explicitly separates the mental picture (model) from a formal picture of the mental picture (a representation of the model). Second, his notion of a model (at that time at least) was highly mathematical [ 3].

Vijay Kumar has proposed a model of the innovation process [ 4]. He frames it as a two-by-two matrix moving from research, to “Framing Insights,” “Exploring Concepts,” and “Making Plans.” He notes, “‘Framing Insights’ are primarily about descriptive modeling, creating abstract mental pictures about the patterns that we recognize about reality. ‘Exploring Concepts’ and ‘Making Plans’ are about prescriptive modeling.” Where the bridge model forefronts the role of models, Kumar’s model forefronts steps that make use of modeling. He recently published a wonderful poster that maps the steps in the “innovation process” to a series of methods.

During the process of writing this article,
interactions co-editor Richard Anderson pointed

out the Kaiser/IDEO model of the innovation process. Christi Zuber reports that

Kaiser Permanente’s Innovation Center (working with IDEO) developed this model in 2004 as part of an innovation toolkit created for use inside Kaiser. This model is similar to Kumar’s model, but the Kaiser model emphasizes storytelling and brainstorming as key methods.

Responding to questions about the origin of the Kaiser/IDEO model, Jane Fulton Suri supplied a recent model of the process of moving from synthesis to strategy. It shares the same basic structure as the Robinson model, though here synthesis (depicted as the right column in other models) is depicted as the left column. The framing of models as a link between patterns and principles is a useful addition [ 5].

While practitioners and educators increasingly make use of models, few forefront the role of modeling in public summaries of their work processes. Glossing over modeling can limit design to the world of form-making and misses an opportunity to push toward interaction and experience. We see modeling becoming an integral part of practice, especially in designing software, services, and other complex systems.

The bridge model makes explicit the role of modeling in the design process. Explicit modeling is useful in at least two ways. First, it accelerates

[ 1] Robinson, R. “Locating the Work: The Spaces Between”, in Everyday Matters, unpublished manuscript, 2005.

[ 2] Beer, S. Decision
and Control:
The Meaning of
Operational Research
and Management
Cybyernetics. New York:
John Wiley & Sons,
1966.

[ 3] Alexander, C. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964.

[ 4] Kumar, V. “Design Innovation Process.” Presentation at the About, With and For Conference, Illinois Institute of Technology/ Institute of Design, Chicago, 2003.

[ 5] Fulton Suri, J. and Gibbs Howard, S. “Going Deeper, Seeing Further.” Advertising: What’s Next? Conference, San Francisco, December 2006.