Design knowledge: context, content and continuity Ken Friedman Department of Knowledge Management, Norwegian School of Management

Design is an interdisciplinary and integrative process constituting a professional field and an intellectual discipline. The complex requirements of material and immaterial production in a knowledge economy call for philosophical inquiry and renewed theory in understanding design. This paper examines the nature of design knowledge. Taxonomy of design knowledge maps the continuum of issues in the field. A six-domain model clarifies the integrative nature of design. It is a discipline drawing on (1) the natural sciences, (2) the humanities and liberal arts, and (3) the social and behavioral sciences. It is a field of practice and application drawing on (4) human professions and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and (6) technology and engineering. The paper concludes with proposals for future development. This includes a progressive research program and an agenda of core research issues.

Design knowledge: context, content and continuity

Design is a broad field of making and planning disciplines. These include industrial design, graphic design, textile design, furniture design, information design, process design, product design, interface design, transportation design, systems design, urban design, design leadership and design management and well as architecture, engineering, information technology, and computer science. These fields focus on different subjects and objects. They have distinct traditions, methods, and vocabularies. They involve distinct and often different professional groups. The traditions dividing these groups are also distinct. Despite differences, ten challenges face all the making disciplines. Common concerns and challenges are building bridges among design fields. These challenges bind the making disciplines together as a common research field. The three performance challenges of making disciplines are that they: 1. Act on the physical world. 2. Address human needs. 3. Generate the built environment. Changes in the larger world cause design scholars, practitioners, and students to converge on common challenges. These challenges require frameworks of theory and research to address problem areas and solve cases. These problem areas involve four substantive challenges: 1. Ambiguous boundaries between artifact, structure, and process. 2. Large-scale social, economic, and industrial frames. 3. A complex environment of needs, requirements, and constraints. 4. Information content that often exceeds the value of physical substance. They also involve three contextual challenges: 1. A complex environment in which many projects or products cross the boundaries of several organizations, stakeholder, producer, and user groups.

2. Projects or products that must meet the expectations of many organizations, stakeholders, producers, and users. 3. Different and sometimes conflicting -- demands at every level of production, distribution, reception, and control. These ten challenges require a qualitatively different approach to professional practice than earlier times. Past environments were simpler. They made simpler demands. Individual experience and personal development were sufficient for depth and substance in professional practice. Experience and development are still necessary. They are no longer sufficient. Most of todays design challenges require analytic and synthetic planning skills that cant be developed through practice alone. Professional design practice today involves advanced knowledge. This knowledge isnt a higher level of professional practice. It is a qualitatively different form of professional practice. It is emerging in response to the demands of the information society and the knowledge economy. Rich new kinds of knowledge are vital if we are to meet these challenges. Consequently, design research has become a central framework for inquiry in design over the past decade. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, kinds of jobs and the kinds of work associated with them have exploded in variety, nature, and skill requirements. At the same time, increasing numbers of jobs have moved from the direct manipulation of physical material to the kinds of work that Reich (1992) summed up under the rubric of symbolic analysis. Jobs are increasingly informated in the industrial democracies. Nearly all jobs in the complex information environment are changing in response to the multiple stimuli of the demanding environments within which work is performed. This has three results. 1. Formerly distinct job categories tend to blur and mix. 2. There are now more kinds of jobs than ever before, with several hundred thousand distinct job descriptions. 3. The built environment takes on a complex new relationship to those who live and work in it. Professional adaptation by rethinking the nature of design is essential to the demands of contemporary work. Design professionals develop the artifacts, structures, and processes that hundreds of thousands of other kinds of workers use. The rate of change and the nature of change in other fields inevitably affect design. This, in turn, affects how designers must think.

As an integrative discipline, design must address problems across many ranges of complexity. All designed artifacts and processes can be described at some point on the spectrum of complexity. Some artifacts may be found at several such points, depending on the level of analysis. A steel hammer, for example, is static. In manufacture and use, however, a hammer undergoes rich and complex forms of interaction with the surrounding environment. Design increasingly involves a full spectrum of processes that lead to the development and use of the designed artifact. Design also moves beyond use to after-use, and recycling. The growing need for full-spectrum product development and concurrent design processes in industry point in this direction. Such concepts as co-design and usercentered design engage the designer in the flow of a constantly changing, complex environment. Complex systems operate at what many describe as the edge of chaos. Working at this edge requires intellectually mature and behaviorally adaptive skills. In this context, the nature of design moves beyond the tacit craft practice of manipulating material artifacts to the explicit professional practice of systemic development and adaptation. In industrial practice, these skills can be summarized by what W. Edwards Deming (1993: 94-118) terms profound knowledge. This knowledge is comprised of four parts, all related to each other: appreciation for a system; knowledge about variation; theory of knowledge; psychology (Deming 1993: 96). Working in the context of complexity requires more sophisticated ways of thought than were needed in world of craft knowledge. The world of craft knowledge moved slowly. The patterns of craft skill were essentially reproductive. For the most part, they involved tacit knowledge, and apprenticeship and guild effectively transmitted them (see: Friedman 1997). Adapting to the demands of a complex world requires us to generate knowledge. This knowledge must be created against the background of existing events while looking forward to a world that does not yet exist. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) describe this frame in the knowledge creation spiral. The crucial factor in the knowledge creation spiral isnt management or making so much as understanding the epistemological and ontological dimensions of managing and making (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995: 70-73). Human beings shift knowledge from one frame to another. As they do, they embrace knowledge, enlarging it, internalizing it, transmitting it, shifting it, giving it new context and transforming it. Humans create new knowledge by acting on and working with knowledge. Knowledge creation requires social context and individual contribution. To do this effectively requires effective thinking. Here, we must address the intersection of design and philosophy as the foundation for design theory and design research. Design is first of all a process of thought and planning. Using the term design as a verb or a process description noun frames design as a dynamic process (Friedman 1993). This makes clear the ontological status of design as a subject of philosophical inquiry.

Fuller (1969: 319) describes the design process in a two-stage model of the design science event flow. The first stage is a subjective process of search and research. The second is a generalizable process that moves from prototype to practice. The subjective process of search and research involves: teleology > intuition > conception > apprehension > comprehension > experiment > feedback > Under generalization and objective development leading to practices, he lists: prototyping #1 > prototyping #2 > prototyping #3 > production design > production modification > tooling > production > distribution > installation > maintenance > service > reinstallation > replacement > removal > scrapping > recirculation A designer is a thinker whose job it is to move from thought to action. A taxonomy of design knowledge domains (Friedman 1992, 1995, 1999) describes the frames within which a designer must act. Each domain requires a broad range of skills, knowledge, and awareness. Design involves more skill and knowledge than one designer can provide. Most successful design solutions require several kinds of expertise. It is necessary to use expertise without being expert in each field. Organization theory suggests building teams or networks to engage the talent for each problem. Understanding the issues these domains involve and the relationships between and among them offers a useful framework for considering design knowledge. Domains of Design Knowledge: a Taxonomy Domain 1: Skills Domain 2: The Domain 3: The for Learning and Human World Artifact Leading Problem solving The Human Being Product Interaction method Human Development Coaching behaviorInformation Methodology Mind mapping semantics Market research Research skills Knowledge creation Innovation research Analysis Physiology and Problematics Rhetoric ergonomics Product generation Logic Research and Creating new Mathematics methodology products Language The Company Transforming old Editing Organizational products

Domain 4: The Environment Natural environment Ecology Evolution Environment Impact Built Environment Cityscape Economy Social web Infrastructure

Writing Presentation skills Public speaking Small group Information graphics

management and behavior Business economics Company culture Leadership Administration Future planning Process management Change management Process skills Company functions Governance Logistics Production Marketing Finance Society Trends Legal issues Media Social economics Communication The World World trade European Union USA Asia Cross-culture Issues Political economics Theory Basics Culture theory Sociology of knowledge Reception theory History of design Sociology of taste Content analysis World history Paradigm analysis Models Fig. 1: Domains of design knowledge

Product regeneration Correcting problems Improving products Positioning Re-engineering (lean production) Design Product design Ergonomics Product semantics Product graphics Functionality Graphic design Visual ergonomics Typography Corporate design Behavioral design Information design Knowledge design Process design Manufacturing Technology Operations Statistical quality control Logistics Process management

Traffic Telecommunication Airports Food distribution Human ecology Architecture Informated buildings Usage Architecture as idea Architecture as corporate identity Profile architecture Interior Furniture Interior as corporate identity Psychology Function Social structure The shape of work The shape of play The shape of private life Installation Philosophy of space Culture theory Art ideas Inquiry

To work consciously with the relationships among the several domains and areas of design knowledge requires systemic thinking. The designer is one member of a team or network that generally involves several elements described by the matrices implicit in the taxonomy. Here arises a difficulty. When we speak of manufacturing todays complex industrial products, we necessarily involve a large network of interacting systems. When the process works well, nearly every part of the system in some way affects every other part of the system. When parts of the system affect each other adversely, the entire system suffers. The failure of systemic thinking in manufacturing complex products leads to major problems across entire industries. A good example of this is the way in which the ascendancy of cost accounting in the automobile industry distorted the entire manufacturing process (Halberstam 1986: 201-221). In contrast, consider W. Edwards Demings approach to management, and the ways in which a systemic overview helped the Japanese automobile industry to surpass its American and European counterparts (Halberstam 1986: 301-320; Deming 1966, 1986, 1993; Walton 1989, 1990; Aguayo 1990; Mann 1989; Scherkenbach 1991). Systemic thinking gives perspective to the models of design offered here. The designer is neither the entry-point nor pivot of the design process. Each designer is the psychological center of his own perceptual process, not the center of the design process itself. The design process has no center. It is a network of linked events. Systemic thinking makes the nature of networked events clear. No designer succeeds unless an entire team succeeds in meeting its goals. Herbert Simon defines design in terms of goals. To design, he writes, is to [devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones (Simon 1982: 129). Design, properly defined, is the entire process across the full range of domains required for any given outcome. The nature of design as an integrative discipline places it at the intersection of several large fields [See figure 2]. In one regard, design is a field of thinking and pure research. In another, it is a field of practice and applied research. When applications are used to solve specific problems in a specific setting, it is a field of clinical research.

Figure 2: Model of the field of design One model for the field of design is a circle of six fields. A horizon bisects the circle into fields of theoretical study and fields of practice and application. The triangles represent six general domains of design. Moving clockwise from the leftmost triangle, these domains are (1) natural sciences, (2) humanities and liberal arts, (3) social and behavioral sciences, (4) human professions and services, (5) creative and applied arts, and (6) technology and engineering. Design may involve any or all of these domains, in differing aspect and proportion depending on the nature of the project at hand or the problem to be solved. The taxonomy of design knowledge and the generic model of design raise implications for design research. These also involve understanding the kinds of knowledge and philosophy that form a foundation for the research act. With the development of design as a branch of knowledge, the activity of design must be understood as praxis, a practice. Praxis, doing, requires virtue. Making, poiesis requires techne, skill. The philosophy appropriate to design may also be a new kind of philosophy that blurs prior distinctions. The knowledge economy is blurring the boundaries between product and service, material and immaterial, hardware, and software. In this context, nearly every design practice has immaterial dimensions along with the material. In a new way, therefore, design links techne with sophia. Design is a mental process linked to physical

outputs in a world where the mental and the material are increasingly interdependent (Friedman 1998). The issue of how design relates to the larger bodies of knowledge within which it is placed is a philosophical question. Questions of how design affects the larger worlds and how the larger world affects design are, in a sense, philosophical questions. Some specific questions on design affect design from the level of meta-inquiry. Issues involving the philosophy of science in relation to design and the broader question of theory are philosophical questions in the sense that Hamilton defined philosophy: -- the science of things divine and human, and the causes in which they are contained; -- the science of effects by their causes; -- the science of sufficient reasons; -- the science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible; -- the science of things evidently deduced from first principles; -- the science of truths sensible and abstract; -- the application of reason to its legitimate objects; -- the science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason; -- the science of the original form of the ego, or mental self; -- the science of science... (ARTFL Websters 1913: 1077) The common challenges that face the making disciplines form the context of design and design research. The taxonomy and generic model of design describe their content. Now, I will address the issue of continuity, and the specific issue of how design is to grow in the light of design research, or, how design research must grow to serve the changing needs and focus of design. Kristensen (1999: unpaged) raises a question of stunning importance for design research in addressing the notion of a progressive research program. What constitutes a progressive research program? Drawing on Kristensen (1999: unpaged), I have identified eight characteristics of a progressive research program. These are: 1. building a body of generalized knowledge, 2. improving problem solving capacity, 3. generalizing knowledge into new areas, 4. identifying value creation and cost effects, 5. explaining differences in design strategies and their risks or benefits, 6. learning on the individual level, 7. collective learning, 8. meta-learning. Four areas of design research must be considered in creating the foundation of progressive research programs within and across the fields of design 1. Philosophy and theory of design 2. Research methods and research practices 3. Design education

4. Design practice. Each field of concern involves a range of concerns. Philosophy and theory of design Philosophy of design Ontology of design Epistemology of design Philosophy of design science Theory construction Knowledge creation Research methods and research practices Research methods Research issues exploration Progressive research programs Development from research to practice Design education Philosophy of design education Education based on research Education oriented to practice Rethinking undergraduate education Undergraduate focus on intellectual skills for knowledge economy Undergraduate focus on practice skills for professional training Undergraduate focus on foundations for professional development Rethinking professional degrees Professional degrees oriented around intellectual skills Professional degrees oriented around practical skills Professional degrees oriented around professional development Research education Undergraduate and professional Design practice Comprehensive practice Profound knowledge Practice linked to solid foundations in education and research Professional development lifelong learning

background for research education Research masters degrees Doctoral education Postgraduate training Continuing education lifelong learning Partnership with design firms Partnership with professional associations Partnership with industry Partnership with government

In 1900, David Hilbert gave a famous speech in which he outlined a progressive research program for mathematical knowledge. In the years after Hilbert proposed a progressive research program, mathematicians solved fundamental theoretical and philosophical problems. They contributed to rich developments in physics and the natural sciences. They even shaped applications that make it possible for all of us to live a better daily life. That is what I hope for in design research leading to new and important kinds of knowledge.

Aguayo, Rafael. 1990. Dr. Deming: the man who taught the Japanese about quality. London: Mercury Books. ARTFL Websters. 1913. Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C. Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago: Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL: http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html. Date accessed: 1999 November 21. Deming, William Edwards. 1966. Some Theory of Sampling. New York: Dover Publications. Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study. Friedman, Ken. 1992. Strategic Design Taxonomy. Oslo: Oslo Business School. Friedman, Ken. Introducing Strategic Design. Oslo, Norway: Oslo Marketing Symposium, 1993. Friedman, Ken. 1995. A Taxonomy of Design Domains. Oslo Marketing Symposium 1995. Symposium Proceedings. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian School of Management School of Marketing. Friedman, Ken. 1997. Design Science and Design Education. In The Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH, 54-72. Friedman, Ken. 1998. Information, Place and Policy. Built Environment. 24: 2/3, 83103. Friedman, Ken. 1999. Philosophies of design. mneskonferens projekteringsmetodik. NorFA research symposium on design methodology. LTH Lund Technical Institute. 1999 November 25-26. Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or oblivion: the prospects for humanity. New York: Bantam Books. Halberstam, David. 1986. The Reckoning. New York: Avon Books.

Kristensen, Tore. 1999. Research on design in business. (Slides from conference keynote presentation.) Useful and Critical: Research in Design. University of Art and Design, Helsinki. Unpaged. Mann, Nancy R. 1989. The keys to excellence: the Deming philosophy. London: Mercury Books. Nonaka, Ikujiro and Hirotaka Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. Scherkenbach, William W. 1991. The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity. Washington, DC: Continuing Engineering Education Program, George Washington University. Simon, Herbert. 1982. The sciences of the artificial., 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts : MIT Press. Walton, Mary. 1989. The Deming Management Method. London: Mercury Books. Walton, Mary. 1991. Deming Management at Work. London: Mercury Books.