...when 140 characters are not enough

This is the fourth sub-section of the Literature Review section for my Capstone project.

Here is a listing of links to the previous capstone project posts:

• Capstone Project: Part 1 - Abstract
• Capstone Project: Part 2 - Introduction
• Capstone Project: Part 3 - Approach and methodology
• Capstone Project: Part 4 - Disruptive Innovation
• Capstone Project: Part 5 - The Design of Business
• Kristian Andersen - Brand Experience Design (posted previously and incorporated into Capstone project)

Design Expertise

Another book I started reading is "Design Expertise" by Kees Dorst and Bryan Lawson (Lawson and Dorst 2009). Dorst and Lawson note that they believe design is a complex collection of skills that anyone has the ability to learn. Further, talented designers rely on skills, knowledge and understanding.They point out that we are still in the preliminary stages of defining design expertise and this book could not even have been written a few years ago.

As is expected, it is necessary to define some of the fundamental terms so as to reduce confusion and find some common ground before going deeper. Interestingly, Dorst and Lawson choose to not define the term "design" outright due to its “multifaceted nature” and the wide variety of design disciplines. Rather, they attempt to develop an integrated understanding of what constitutes design by looking at the design process from several different perspectives. It is their intention to construct a composite that will be pieced together, resulting in an accurate definition. It is interesting that they note this is the same approach we (designers) typically use to understand our own design problems.

Dorst and Lawson state that design thinking is not one way of thinking. It has been called multidisciplinary by some and others have gone as far as calling the design discipline "transdisciplinary" (Blevis and Stolterman 2008). Designers employ analytical and creative thinking - not necessarily in sequence or in a linear fashion but rather in an integrated, almost simultaneous manner. We live between two worlds with one foot planted in the world of science and analysis while the other foot is firmly grounded in the creativity of the arts. We don't fit entirely within either one. We often find ourselves engaging in our own game of tug-of-war with our peers as some members of the design community try to become more like one discipline or the other. Yet, this balance serves us well in coming up with solutions to all types of "wicked" problems.

Designers focus their energies on the solution, not the problem. They approach problems as if there is no structure to the problem and do not attempt to analyze all the data. Rather, it is a fine balance between analysis and creativity. Experienced designers place constraints on themselves. Perhaps they will limit the amount of time to conduct analysis (research) before moving on to generating concepts and ideation.

As a result of this hybridization of disciplines found in design, designers are often misunderstood. Dorst and Lawson actually compare us to the platypus, an animal that many considered to be a hoax when it was first discovered. The platypus did not fit within the norms and standards that were then known to biologists. Fortunately, this didn't bother the platypus. They didn't know that they were an anomaly and a challenge to the scientific thinking of the day. They certainly didn't make any effort to change who they were in order to fit within the existing conventions. Perhaps we as designers can learn a few lessons from the platypus. If we do, we might find those in other fields less resistant to accepting our authenticity.

Dorst and Lawson identify five key skills of design: formulating, representing, moving, evaluating and managing. They clarify the meaning of each of these skills, relying heavily on work done by Nigel Cross. These skills are situated within four “levels” of design: project, process, practice, and profession. Finally, they identify three types of thinking employed in the design process: convention-based, situation-based, and strategy-based. These three models are used as the foundation for exploring the nature of design expertise, identifying a proposed path to follow towards the development of design expertise and exploration of possible effective methods for teaching the design student.

Loading mentions Retweet

This is the second sub-section of the Literature Review section for my Capstone project.

Here is a listing of links to the previous capstone project posts:

• Capstone Project: Part 1 - Abstract
• Capstone Project: Part 2 - Introduction
• Capstone Project: Part 3 - Approach and methodology
• Capstone Project: Part 4 - Disruptive Innovation

The Design of Business

Another primary influence upon the direction of this project has been Roger Martin’s “The design of business : why design thinking is the next competitive advantage” (Martin 2009). Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. He has been researching and introducing innovative new ways for business leaders and consultants to think and transform organizations. This new path is grounded and driven by design thinking.

Martin describes design thinking as the foundation for balancing analytical thinking and intuitive thinking. This balance allows organizations to maintain innovation which will increase efficiency and lead to perpetual competitiveness. In essence, design thinking allows organizations to move from the complex to the simple, from mystery to algorithm through what he refers to as the “knowledge funnel” [see Figure 6].
Martin indicates that design thinking is made possible by using abductive logic, a concept that was originally developed by James Peirce (Peirce, Houser et al. 1992). Abductive thinking equips design thinkers to explore possibilities by looking to the future while still exploiting opportunities by looking to the past.

He elaborates by stating that the roadmap to success will lead to new kinds of organizations marked by changes in structure, culture, and processes. These new organizations will be run by a different kind of leader that is focused on maintaining this balance between analytical and intuitive thinking. These new organizations will be staffed with a new type of worker that will have a different view of the world and their role in it. They will use new sets of tools to understand the world and organize their thinking through a new type of experience to develop the skills to use these tools. Jon Kolko calls this “design synthesis” which he describes as “an abductive sensemaking process.” (Kolko 2010)

References
Kolko, J. (2010). "Abductive Thinking and Sensemaking: The Drivers of Design Synthesis." Design Issues 26(1): 15-28.

Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business : why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston, Mass., Harvard Business Press.

Peirce, C. S., N. Houser, et al. (1992). The essential Peirce : selected philosophical writings. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

Loading mentions Retweet

The next section of my capstone project focuses on my literature research. Since the section is so big, I decided to break it up into several sub-sections on the blog. One of the sub-sections is an overview of the talk that Kristian Andersen gave last month. Since I already posted about that talk in a previous blog post (Kristian Andersen - Brand Experience Design), I am not going to re-post it. Here is a listing of links to the previous capstone project posts:

• Capstone Project: Part 1 - Abstract
• Capstone Project: Part 2 - Introduction
• Capstone Project - Part 3: Approach and methodology

Disruptive Innovation

One of the early primary influences on this project was Clayton Christensen’s Keynote Address at the TechPoint Innovation Summit on September 29, 2009. He elaborates on the quote above by identifying a specific type of innovation that is “disruptive” (Bower and Christensen 1995). Disruptive technology and innovation is identified by three specific characteristics:

1. they generally make possible the emergence of new markets,
2. they appear to be financially unattractive to existing organizations, and
3. they do not meet current customers needs.

Christensen gave examples of how disruptive innovation has dramatically transformed many different industries, including steel manufacturing, computer hardware, automobile manufacturing, and consumer electronics [Figure 5]. He explained how new markets emerged, new companies were formed, existing companies lost market share, and markets were broadened. These disruptive innovations have been the catalysts to transform organizations, business models, and even the requisite skill sets of the employees within those organizations.

In one of his articles, Christensen indicates that business leaders are missing “a habit of thinking about their organization's capabilities as carefully as they think about individual people's capabilities.” (Christensen and Overdorf 2000) I began to consider whether or not this missing habit of thinking had any correlation with design thinking. The disruptive innovations he referred to sounded like they were very similar to the “ill-defined” (Cross 2004), “indeterminate” (Buchanan 1992), and “wicked” (Rittel and Webber 1973) problems addressed in design.

It turns out that Christensen’s resolution to the problem of disruptive innovations is to create a new spin-off organization that is separate from the parent organization and keep it separate in order to “isolate them from the stifling demands of mainstream organizations” (Bower and Christensen 1995). This solution may provide a direct answer for business organizations competing for profits in the marketplace. However, it is extremely simplistic.

Christensen fails to address the underlying rationale that would lead to an overall thought process change. He has done a wonderful job of helping business leaders identify disruptive innovation and he told them what to do when they come upon it. It falls short of identifying the fundamental principles to help us understand how and why organizations need to adopt, manage, and adapt to disruptive innovations.

Figure 5: Clayton Christensen’s Diagram of Disruptive Innovations

Source: www.claytonchristensen.com/images/keyconcepts/disruptiveInnovation01.jpg

References
Bower, J. L. and C. M. Christensen (1995). "Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave." Harvard Business Review 73(1): 43-53.

Buchanan, R. (1992). "Wicked Problems in Design Thinking." Design Issues 8(2): 5-21.

Christensen, C. (2009). How to Create New Growth Businesses in a Risk Minimizing Environment. Innovation Summit 2009, Indianapolis, IN, TechPoint.

Christensen, C. M. and M. Overdorf (2000). "Meeting the Challenge of Disruptive Change. (cover story)." Harvard Business Review 78(2): 66-76.

Cross, N. (2004). "Expertise in design: an overview." Design Studies 25(5): 427-441.

Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber (1973). "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning." Policy Sciences 4(2): 155-169.

Loading mentions Retweet

This is the third installment from my capstone paper. The prior two entries were the Abstract and the Introduction. You are encouraged to read those first but feel free just to start right here. As always, your comments and feedback are greatly appreciated. This is a work in progress. I will be devoting most of the Spring semester on this project.

Approach and methodology
As innovation and technology have become pervasive, not only in our professional but also our personal lives, the role of design has become increasingly more important. As a newly enrolled student in the HCI/d Masterʼs program, I began to discover that design is much broader in scope than I realized. I usually thought of design as a smaller part of a larger whole such as interaction design, website design, graphic design, software design, interior design, fashion design, or art design.

HCI/d is one of many disciplines situated within the domain of a much larger discipline classified as “design”. This had a profound impact on me. I started to see that there was a language that could be appropriated to generate a deeper understanding of past experiences and for use in future endeavors.

The Big Picture
While discussing the HCI/d program with an associate several weeks into my first semester, I commented that I thought HCI/d would be the MBA of the twenty-first century. Most graduates of this program go on to find careers as interaction design practitioners. However, the design concepts, theories, and principles we learn equip us to perform many different jobs that require solving ill-defined problems, problems that have good and bad solutions and are consequential. These problems have an infinite number of solutions, each one is unique, they are symptoms of other problems, require the designer to make rational choices that they are liable for, and do not have singular solutions (Rittel and Webber 1973).

This predisposition has motivated me to explore the rationale behind it. I am hoping that my research will allow me to develop a more structured understanding of the practical applications for design thinking and the use of design principles and concepts in fields that are not traditionally considered to be design-centered.

In a sense this project is an auto-ethnographic study of my two years as a Masterʼs candidate in the HCI/d program at the Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing. As such, this study is largely derived from substantial secondary research of articles, papers, blog posts and books that appear to have some correlation to design. This research has started to identify how design principles are appropriated across various disciplines. It has also revealed what characteristics design shares with other disciplines and what characteristics are unique to design.

Reflection-in-action and double-loop learning have been integral design principles that have been applied to this process. There has been an almost endless questioning of the norms, rules and objectives of this project. New information continues to shape and mold the problem, turning it into a new problem.

Focus on Social Media
Initially, I thought that the primary focus of this project would be directed towards social media and how it could be used to promote design thinking within organizations, specifically business organizations. This predisposition was rooted in the notion that the emergence of social media and Web 2.0 technology made it easier for people to express their ideas, generate critiques, reflect-in-action and clarify or re-define problems.

Social media has been adopted within business organizations for marketing and customer service purposes. It seemed that this might introduce an opportunity to integrate it into the corporate culture and organizational structure in order to facilitate design thinking. New areas of study such as Enterprise 2.0 and Social Business Design are rapidly emerging (Hinchcliffe 2006; Dachis, Kim et al. 2009).

However, upon reflection, it became clear that all organizations are always mediated. Social media is just one more method by which this mediation can be appropriated. While the tools of social media may reduce barriers and help to overcome obstacles that organizations face, they are still just tools. The effective appropriation of those tools is determined by broader theories and principles, many of which are grounded in design.

Design Research
Design as a discipline has been formally studied for a little over forty years. Most design researchers consider that it began with the inception of the Design Research Society and the Conference on Design Methods (Jones and Thornley 1963). The escalating advancements of technology and innovation along with the disruptions noted above have provided a tremendous incentive as well as opportunity for the expansion and growth in design research. Over the past four to five years, design research has matured substantially. It is no coincidence that this has occurred simultaneously with the emergence of Web 2.0 technology and social media.

Many recent articles state that “design” and “design thinking” are hot topics in the business world. Stanford Universityʼs new Institute of Design, the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, as well as popular success stories at Proctor & Gamble and GE may lead one to agree with this. However, a trend report of Google searches for “design” in the Business category show that Facebook and YouTube are trending stronger than design. In addition, “marketing” is still almost three times as popular as “design” [Figure 4]. Design in the business community may be getting more attention in some arenas but there is clearly much more opportunity for an increased presence overall.

In Search of Clarity
Most of the research that I have conducted so far has been comprised of scanning over a dozen books, reading blog posts on almost one hundred different blogs, and reading countless papers and journal articles. In addition, I have conducted numerous personal interviews with design students, design practitioners, and people whose professions are not considered to be traditional design jobs. I also had the opportunity to attend two conferences and numerous talks sponsored by the School of Informatics and other programs on campus.

The overall objective of this research has been to gain deeper insights into how and when people appropriate design based principles and thinking in the tasks that they perform. In addition, I have tried to determine the degree to which they identified these actions as being “designerly” as they were doing them. I am hoping that by continuing this research, I will be able to help increase the efficiency by which people utilize design principles as well as facilitate the effectiveness of extending design thinking into areas that are not usually thought of as being design jobs or functions.

References
Dachis, J., P. Kim, et al. (2009). Social Business Design, Dachis Group.

Hinchcliffe, D. (2006). "Web 2.0 definition updated and Enterprise 2.0 emerges." Enterprise Web 2.0, from http://blogs.zdnet.com/Hinchcliffe/?p=71.

Jones, J. C. and D. G. Thornley (1963). Conference on Design Methods. Conference on Design Methods. J. C. Jones and D. G. Thornley. London, Pergamon Press.

Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber (1973). "Dilemmas in a general theory of planning." Policy Sciences 4(2): 155-169.

Loading mentions Retweet

Here is the introduction from my capstone paper. I need to come up with a good title for the project. I am open to suggestions. As always, your feedback, criticism and critique are welcomed. You can read the Abstract, which is the first entry in this series, here.

Introduction
What is design?
Who are designers?
Can non-designers design?
What is the language of design?
How do designers and non-designers interact?
Can non-designers speak the language of design?

It would be absurd to expect this capstone project to be an expansive study and explanation of these questions. Others have allocated many years of research and study trying to bring clarity to these questions. Design researchers and practitioners are still not even in agreement about the methods and approaches for addressing these questions, much less in identifying answers (Rogers 2004; Zimmerman, Forlizzi et al. 2007; Stolterman 2008).

What is the importance of asking these questions?
The global use of information and communication technology is growing at an unprecedented rate. Technological advancements are yielding exponential improvements in processing speed, storage capacity and the transfer of information. We are now able to share and consume text-based, audio and video data easier than ever before in the history of mankind. The transformation from the analog age to the digital age is well under way.

When compared to the iMac from 1999 [Figure 1], the current standard iMac is equipped with a processor that is ten times faster, has forty times as much memory and video memory, can store at least 100 times as much data, and is equipped for wireless networking. The current iMac has a 21.5-inch LCD display versus a 15-inch CRT, twice as many USB ports, built-in Bluetooth, stereo speakers, microphone, video camera, DVD/CD read/write optical drive, and is more environmentally friendly (Apple.com).

Smartphones, the iPod Touch and other popular mobile devices are as powerful as desktop computers from a decade ago. Broadband, wireless and 3G phone networks are making internet access available in restaurants, on busses, in airplanes, in classrooms, and in the car. At the same time, the price of technology is becoming more affordable.

The impact of this massive global expansion of technology is still not clear. Organizations of all sizes and types are struggling with gaining an understanding of the transformational effect this technology is having. During its lifetime, fixed telephone lines (land lines) were barely able to reach 20% of the worldʼs population. In less than ten years, mobile phone subscriptions not only surpassed fixed phone lines but are now in use by over 60% of global inhabitants [Figure 2]. In addition, the number of internet users is doubling approximately every five years with an increasingly larger percentage of them having access to both fixed and mobile broadband. (International Telecommunication Union 2009)

What will the next ten years bring? Can we continue to grow at such a steep curve? How will our methods of communication be different? How will it affect our personal and professional lives? What roles will designers play? How will it change?

I have a very strong and heartfelt desire to explore and examine each of the questions posed above. That desire is born from my own personal experiences. We process all new information through the phenomenological experience filter of our lifeworlds. We use these prior experiences as contextual tools and resources to create meaning and understanding of new information. We relate new information to our own previous experiences. We try to make relative sense of this information so as to make it useful and usable (Gadamer 1975; Smith 2001).

I worked in the business world for almost thirty years. I witnessed the advent of the personal computer, the fax machine, the internet, and cell phones. I experienced the changes they made on how every manner of business was conducted. I remember the struggles people had in adapting to these innovations. I saw people lose their jobs as new technology increased our capacity to be productive, simplify processes and allow for decentralization in the form of outsourcing and cheaper labor. I know people who were able able to improve their lifestyles as a result of gaining access to previously unattainable resources. This is the lifeworld I brought with me when I enrolled in this program.

When I started studying Human-Computer Interaction Design (HCI/d) my understanding of the subject was profoundly influenced by my work experience in the world of financial services and business over the past thirty years. I realized almost immediately that many of the fundamental principles of design were being appropriated every day in the workplace, usually without any attribution towards design. While I was working I never understood that these methods and techniques were grounded in the discipline of design.

Another observation I made during the past eighteen months was that there is quite a large disagreement about what design is and how it is practiced (Garrett 2009). Further, there is a substantial communication gap between design and non-design professions. This is especially true when it comes to determining where design is situated in the overall scheme of change, progress, innovation and adaptation. This dissonance hinders progress, interaction, and collaboration on all fronts.

The overall purpose of this project is to develop a deeper understanding of design, especially interaction design, by exploring the questions stated above. It is my intention that this research will allow me to help others appropriate design principles and thinking more fully, whether or not they consider themselves to be in the design profession. Further, I would hope that the findings from this research will facilitate more effective communication and interaction regarding the role of design within the overall goals and objectives of organizations of all types and sizes. This project will be successful if it enables others to move in this direction.

References
Apple.com. "iMac (21.5 and 27-inch, Late 2009) - Technical Specifications."   Retrieved 12/28/09, from http://support.apple.com/kb/SP576.

Apple.com. "iMac (333 MHz) - Technical Specifications."   Retrieved 12/28/09, from http://support.apple.com/kb/SP131.

Gadamer, H. G. (1975). Truth and method. London, Sheed & Ward.

Garrett, J. J. (2009). "The Memphis Plenary." ASIS&T IA Summit 2009, from http://www.jjg.net/ia/memphis/.

International Telecommunication Union (2009). Measuring the information society : the ICT Development Index. Geneva, International Telecommunication Union.

Rogers, Y. (2004). "New Theoretical Approaches for Human-Computer Interaction." Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) 38: 87-143.

Smith, P. (2001). Cultural theory : an introduction. Malden, Mass., Blackwell.

Stolterman, E. (2008). "The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research." International Journal of Design 2(1): 55-65.

Zimmerman, J., J. Forlizzi, et al. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI, San Jose, California, USA, ACM.

Loading mentions Retweet

Even though the Fall semester is over, I continue to work on my Capstone project. I have learned that when I am writing stuff that is really "important" it takes me about five times longer to write. I have also started to appreciate the value of balancing reading with writing. I find that I cannot just read, read, read and then write, write, write. It seems to work better for me if I read, write, read, write, read, write. Another thing that I have noticed is a part of my reading is going back and reading what I wrote, which in turn usually prompts me to go read something else new in order to clarify what I have already written. I guess you could call it "reflection-in-action" in action. ;-)

I am finding this to be very productive but also very time consuming. How do people write entire books? I go a whole day and am lucky if I have generated 1,000 words. So this is what is leading me to start posting some stuff to my blog. I have a bunch of content but know that I still have a ton of stuff to do. Sometimes, I am wondering if it is too much to tackle.

I am going to post excerpts from my project when I am ready for other eyes to see them. My primary motivation for this is that I will get your critique, feedback, insights, suggestions, ideas, and links to other good resources. I know that the more input I get from others in this field, the more clear my thoughts and insights will be. So, here you go. Have at it. Any and all (constructive) criticism is welcome and solicited. I am starting with the Abstract from the paper.

Abstract
The global use of information and communication technology (ICT) is growing at an unprecedented rate. We are now able to share and consume text-based, audio and video data with more people and in more ways than ever before in the history of mankind.

The overall long-term impact of this massive global expansion of technology is still not clear. The technological innovations that we are witnessing are described by some as being “disruptive”. They result in the generation of brand new organizations that were not possible before. They can also lead to an organization’s failure. We are seeing radical transformation taking place in all types of organizations including government entities, Fortune 500 companies, universities, hospitals, and small businesses. Organizations of all sizes and types are struggling with gaining an understanding of the transformational effect this technology is having. No one is exempt.

This massive transformation has also generated new industries, careers and work environments. The role of “traditional” designers has changed as well. In the midst of this phenomenal expansion of innovation and technology, it appears that a substantial communication gap has developed between the design and non-design professions. This dissonance hinders progress, interaction, and collaboration on all fronts.

The overall purpose of this project is to develop a deeper understanding of design as it fits into this new world that we are creating with today’s information and communication technology. It is my intention that this research will allow me to help others appropriate design principles and thinking more fully, whether or not they consider themselves to be in the design profession. Further, I hope that the findings from this research will facilitate more effective communication and interaction regarding the role of design within the overall goals and objectives of organizations of all types and sizes.

Loading mentions Retweet

Abstract

Many design-based disciplines have turned their focus towards declarative absolutes, algorithms, and quantification to the point where the fundamental principles of design have been marginalized. Today, these disciplines are looking for fresh approaches to overcome what appear to be new obstacles. Health care, education, business, government, law, journalism, engineering and other professions are all struggling for answers and resolutions to the disruptions they are experiencing as a result of innovation, instability and change.

The purpose of this paper is to establish, express and explicate my own understanding of the role of design. Further, I want to develop an understanding of the current overall position of design thinking and design theory within disciplines focused upon “changing existing situations into preferred ones”. This will help to examine ways in which design principles can and will be integrated into these disciplines in order to provide them with the tools and resources necessary to address the problems and issues they face now and in the future.

Loading mentions Retweet

via jennamcwilliams.blogspot.com

Social media is changing what we "know" to be true. Question - what is changing - the world or our perception of the world? Is social media making things different or is it just shedding light on what has always been there? Or maybe a little of both. Either way, it is imperative to know and understand the difference between what is valid (proven true by future events) and reasonable (considered to be true based on past events).

Loading mentions Retweet