...when 140 characters are not enough

I continue to read through "Design Expertise" by Dorst and Lawson. We are still in the preliminary stages of defining design expertise. 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. Dorst and Lawson define "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.

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". 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.

Coming up, we examine several of the other perspectives presented by Dorst and Lawson as we continue to construct a working definition of what design really is.