Editorial It is indeed a great pleasure to write an editorial for this particular issue of Design Studies because so many of the papers in it deal with a topic proving so important to my own architectural design studies, namely the psycholo- gical, social and cultural basis of design, designing and designers. In the recent past far too many designers, and even those who study design, have ignored the human element in their work with disastrous effects to society at large. Not so these papers, many of which take the human factor as the central focus of their studies, research, discussions and conclusions.

In particular the first paper by Sarah Dinham draws arresting parallels between designing and teaching pro- cesses. She develops the notion that 'good' teaching must be a design task since the processes of both professionals begin with strong conceptualising, followed by their attempts to convert indeterminate situations to determin- ate one. The paper lays down a framework for later analysis by reviewing current thought on the importance of design studio teaching. It then describes the possibili- ties for undertaking rigorous studies of studio teaching. Saran convincingly argues that both design and teaching are amenable to analysis and therefore open to improve- ment. She concludes by building on her own scholarly analysis to propose recommendations for future enabling instruction in design education. These recommendations are based upon a fourfold model of designer learning developed by my own team here in Portsmouth Polytechnic back in 1986. While we have undoubtedly found such a model extremely useful in helping our own learning technology developments for architects, it is encouraging to see that this work, described fully in the January 1987 issue of Design Studies (Vol 8 No 1), has been seen to be useful elsewhere. It also shows how influential such a scientifically based journal as Design Studies can be to design, and especially design education.

Moving onto a more pragmatic exploration Stephen Kendall's paper describes a series of detailed case studies showing his recent experiences in trying to teach an introductory courses in Architectural Technology. Dur- ing these courses he tries to get students to uncouple considerations of architectural technology and design intention in their minds to aid their understanding of building design systems as a wholes. He has found the concept of thematic systems in architectural design a useful pedagogical starting point for his students' ex- plorations and in particular shows how they creatively use such systemic techniques to generate many accept-

able and exciting variants of basic building assemblies. He clearly brings a new dimension to the problem of teaching technology in design, which is so often seen by students as a boring and irrelevant part of their courses. Rather his courses are seen to be challenging to the young designer who appears to become increasingly curious about the relationship between design reasoning and architectural technology, continuing their search way beyond the end of the formal teaching. For this alone Kendall's ideas are worthy of consideration.

In 'design education on the road towards thought development', Portillo and Dohr focus deep into the subjective development of the designer as an individual. They have designed some useful tools and probes, and adapted other psychological instruments, to enable measurements to be made of designers' thought position- ing. From such instruments they have shown design- specific and global thought levels are related to creative experience with 'dualistic thinkers' having less creative experiences than did their 'multiplistic' counterparts. Their research indicates how a developmental approach in design education, matching pedagogical technique to students need at a particular time, can encourage students to grow and cope with increasing complexity.

To change tack a little, the paper by Hart, Service and Baker charts the relationship between market success and 20 British manufacturing companies' orientation towards the complex issue of design. Commerical suc- cess, they say, is a function of design orientation of a company, with value being added in terms of superior quality to designed products. They show two classes of organisation those whose corporate use of design is channelled into an aggressive search for new opportuni- ties, the so-called 'proactors', and those who use design in a passive, reactive way, known as the 'reactors'. Proactors use extensive team work, reinforcing all possible relationships between elegance, aesthetics and the functional aspects of the product. Whereas the reactors focus on current technical problems and lack of market data, basing future products on tradition amend- ing only where necessary. They conclude that the way a company views and carries out the task of design simply mirrors the companies activities at policy or board level. Furthermore, it also reflects the success rate of their new products - design is clearly important in the industrial market place.

Malcolm Bell describes two case studies in the domain of computer aided architectural design the application of

78 DESIGN STUDIES

2D draughting systems and 3D modelling for external works design and for the design and manufacture of portal frames. His case studies reveal the ability of designer-users to be able to develop for themselves design aids to support their own requirements and then to operate them in a flexible way. When motivated designers seem able to enhance considerably both types of system to aid their everyday design tasks. He pleads for a little more help from computing specialists to make the task of such designers easier - a call that has been heard by the Science and Engineering Council who have recently initiated a new research programme in the general area of IT Applications for Environmental Design. Those British researchers wishing to develop design studies in this area are encouraged to contact Dr Roger Day the Coordinator of this programme at the Centre for Information Technology Application, Ports- mouth Polytechnic (0705 842086).

Sidney Newton undertakes a theoretical exploration relating to whether or not there can be any 'humanity' residing in the computing machines we use to support design. By machines here he means any system support- ing Computer Aided Design, Artificial Intelligence, IKBS, Expert Systems or Robotics etc. Having designed many computing systems in the field of costing for building design, he is now of the opinion that at best computing machines are no more than a back-drop against which designers will increasingly find them- selves. At best they can only articulate design, at worst they are irrelevant machines. For Dr Newton, design now has to be an act of discovering 'the self' and as such cannot be placed within any machine. He realises that such thoughts may not to some appear the appropriate focus for research attention. However, he argues poig- nantly that such thought should raise significant and necessary questions to those involved in developing computer aided design systems. He believes that their failure to address these questions will fast make CAD research irrelevant to design. Unfortunately, all too many computing scientists and software engineering have not got the time to consider the sort of questions Dr Newton poses.

In the final paper Gerald Nadler has adapted his inaugural lecture as IBM Professor of Engineering Management which concerned itself with 'design proces- ses and their results'. From his vast American experi- ences in design he suggests that the primary reason why the United States has become so uncompetitive is a result of the antiquated mode of design thinking curently operating in business and industry. He believes three fallacies embedded in conventional designing keep indus- try in the deep mire it finds itself in: the first myth is that all problems are alike or even identical; the second fallacy is that it is sufficient to keep abreast of the latest technologies and techniques to produce the best solution; the fmal fallacy is that the research approach is applicable to real-life problem solving. Nadler suggests we will only become competitive again by adopting an alternative mode to the way we go about design. He calls this the total approach. In this sort of designing one first looks in

detail at the objectives for the design. These must be more than just producing effectiveness. He believes all designers should work towards maximising both the likelihood of implementing a recommended solution and the effectiveness of resources allocated to the design process. He goes on to show how designers' processes ought to be changed if his three objectives are to be attained and reports how the Japanese already both understand and put into operation his simple total design strategies. If the Western nations are to survive as profit centres they would do well to heed Professor Nadler's call for the adoption of multiple objectives and multiple factors in the design process. His paper concludes by indicating a strategy for successful design change which he says must conform to seven basic principles: the uniqueness principle; the purpose principle; the solution-after-next principle; the systems principle; the limited-information principle; the people-design princi- ple; the betterment-time-line principle. Unfortunately all the evidence suggests that such a flexible approach to problem solving rarely occurs, because the only-one-way attitude still dominates. He urges engineers and design professionals to shed their traditional mind-sets and employ the total approach.

Each paper in this issue deals with a different aspect of the human dimension as it relates to design. Each stresses the importance of the human attributes of designerly behaviour. Some papers indicate the problems that result when the machines are used as designers, others how human thought processes can be used to extend machine and other knowledge. Their consideration of the nature of the relationship between human designer and support- hag technology is profound. Many papers seem to suggest that it is only through more appropriate education of the young that we will begin to cope better with designing for the future. This is surely a worthy task and the papers here help us understand that important process a little more.

Finally, I could not fmish this editorial without saying a few words about Sydney Gregory, who died recently of a stroke; see the obituary by Nigel Cross on page 131. To me Sydney was the father of design methods. He instilled in may of us the need for rigour and precision in our work. Indeed without him the truly academic, scientific and scholarly nature of this present journal would not be as it now is. Some years ago in my early dealings with Design Studies Sydney scolded me for failing to adopt, in my own work, the level he and I expected of others. After arguing vociferously with him at the time I thought deeply on his words and started introducing greater rigour and care in the scientific basis of my own work. He had this affect on many people and as a result those of us who still study design are better for having known him. He will be sorely missed. I only hope that those of us who continue to carry the banner he originally held high before us can live up to his expectations. At the very least I hope this journal will continue to carry the fine academic reputation Sydney Gregory initiated.

James Powell

Vol 10 No 2 April 1989 79