International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics

1. "A procedure aimed at the solution of certain non-trivial practical problems, or…

"… a methodological phenomenon of the practical sciences" (W. GASPARSKI, 1993, p.407).

GASPARSKI gives us a systemic evaluation of the more classical methodology of design. Commenting his two definitions, he writes: "The former… may be defined as the methodology sensu stricto, whereas in the latter, the methodology of design is tantamount to the methodology of the applied (practical) sciences. There are also definitions which treat jointly both concepts, as one whole; these may be called the methodology of design sensu largo" (Ibid).

About design as a technique for "constructing things", T. KOTARBINSKI, as quoted by GASPARSKI, wrote: "Saying of someone that he is constructing a design of a certain thing, we usually mean that, having decided to accomplish a certain task or to advise its completion, he endeavours to contrive the conditions necessary for carrying into effect that task, i.e. work or product… Any engineering specialization (science of bridge construction, machine construction, etc.) may be called a practical science, since it is primarily concerned with designing" (p.408).

Classical design starts with the definition of the problem to be resolved, through the analysis of the existing system. It defines the scope of a project to modify it and it studies the feasibility of the same. The design phase by an expert or a board of experts consists in the authoritative description of the proposed new system and of the steps to implement it. Consultations rarely cross the limits of (limited) technical assessment and mostly disregard other and more general aspects. It is very seldom socially participative.

In fact, such a formulation, while not objectionable per se, forgets the human aims of design: We want to construct "things" because we pursue personal and social goals. Thus design is not merely a technical endeavor.

As observed by E. STOLTERMAN: "It is not only knowledge about how to design that is needed. I think that to be a good designer it is of utmost importance to have knowledge about design. It is important to reveal hidden preconceptions and assumptions about design practice. This has to be done by questioning the traditions and values predominant in the specific design area. Design learning should not be a process of conservation where existing practice is taken for granted and the only answer. Design learning is not a question of a simple transfer of established knowledge from experienced designers to inexperienced designers" (1992, p.1028).

It is now moreover becoming obvious that design should include a previous critique of these aims from various angles as for example possible long term results and ecological soundness (see B. BANATHY's definition and comments).

GASPARSKI thus quotes S.A. GREGORY, who makes the point: "The science of design should develop all interdisciplinary potential and employ not only the achievement of disciplines concerned with detailed design, but also of managerial science, systems engineering, and those aspects of behavioral sciences which deal with designing, designers, design institutions and social implications of design" (p.413).

Unfortunately, such aspects of behavioral sciences are still somewhat embryonary, in spite of ACKOFF, BANATHY, CHECKLAND, CHURCHMAN, van GIGCH's and others efforts.

2. "A creative, decision-oriented, disciplined enquiry" (B. BANATHY, 1988, p.27).

B. BANATHY gives the following explanations about his systemic concept of design: "(it) first clarifies the reason for engaging in design, and then diagnoses and describes the design problem situation; formulates expectations, purposes, and requirements of the system to be designed or redesigned; generates and clarifies alternative representations of the system that can meet those requirements and expectations; devises criteria by which to evaluate those alternatives; describes the most promising alternative and prepares a plan for the development and implementation of the selected design" (Ibid).

And still: "Design will take on the characteristics of learning" (Ibid. , p.30).

Some supplementary pre-requisites seem necessary:

1) One great danger at the beginning of the design process is the "ignorance of ignorance" (J. FOURASTIÉ), or the "invisibility" problem (G.DE ZEEUW), or "underconceptualization" (J. WARFIELD). When we ignore some basic aspects of the situation, we may very well formulate, or worse, tacitly believe in incomplete or even false assumptions. In this case, all our design will rest on shaky foundations. We have thus a very important preliminary difficulty to solve: How do we get "out of our system". This could be called the "perceptive problem".

2) We should not ignore, or at least should try to become conscious of our own socially and culturally conditioned mindscapes (M. MARUYAMA), which may in many cases, distort our perceptions and understanding. This could be called the "ideological distortion".

BANATHY is obviously aware of these problems as he emphasizes the need for: "frontend analysis/diagnosis of the design problem situation: clarify organizational culture and reason for design, formulate organizing perspectives that guide the design, explore barriers that prevent/hinder our continuing development, develop a rich picture of the design problem situation and, display a systemic analysis and structured description of the design problem situation" (p.33).

Still, how do we take distance from ourselves, as "autopoietic thinkers" (or tinkerers!)?

For a quite complete overview of the systemic concept of design as seen by all significant authors in the field , the paper on " the practice and ethics of design" by K. BAUSCH should be consulted (2000, p. 23-50)