Designing is Problem-Solving

Abstract

A design is defined as specifications or plans that are used to construct an object or to solve an activity or process. The implementation of a design is used to provide results in the form of a prototype, process, or product. The main verb used in this context is “to design,” which means developing a design. The word Design is a broad term that encloses several concepts that collectively describe Design. For example, the design outcome is defined as the consequences of use in the world of services, products, systems, and processes. The common perception of Design is problem-solving, but it is not so. The topic I have selected for this paper is designing is problem-solving because the obvious thing is designers are not problem solvers. Designing is problem-solving is not the truth because problems are natural and human-made that might be out of reach from designers, researchers, and instructors. We all know that problems end when we solve them. The design couldn’t be related to problem-solving because if Design could solve problems, then the problem should vanish after the development of an appropriate design. Designers in the modern age are doing well to provide consistently great visual work. Good Design and designer envisioned designs and intended to provide creativity to people instead of solving problems. This paper will reveal the actual role of a designer that is not to solve-problems, but Design was to produce drawings for the approval of his clients and the instructions of manufacturers.

Introduction

While talking to Design, lots of people will agree with the statement, “Designing is problem-solving,” which refers to a process that seeks solutions to solve a specific problem. Setting design as “problem-solving” also informed the strategy of design thinking, a design methodology that provides a solution-based approach to solving problems. Understanding the human needs involved, re-framing the problem in human-centric ways, brainstorming ideas and iteration in prototyping and testing, Design Thinking standardized designers’ work processes, and help us systematically extract, teach, learn, and apply these human-centered techniques to solve problems creatively and innovatively. I understand the metaphor of “design is problem-solving” emphasized science and rationality in the design process. Design is problem-solving is a common perception that needed to be corrected because the real meaning of the problem is far away from Design. A problem is not inherent, nor the Design could vanish a problem completely. Problems end with a solution, but that solution is not in Design. The role of designers in this is not to solve problems but to provide schedules and designs that could provide away. Designers also provide alternatives that could solve generational problems. However, I still feel this definition is lacking precision, and I will reflect on it from different perspectives.

Designing is defined as some models that extrapolate from past behaviors affecting present behaviors as well as existing behaviors.  Week 3 reading talks about the meaning of designing and its frequent impact on present design decisions (Archer, 1992, p. 54). Designers portray past, present, and future trends in a short frame to tell viewers about the existing or prevailing reality. Although Design covers a broad range of disciplines, it is not necessary that designing is all about solving problems. Design is working within problems not to deal with a problem and solve it. For example, to provide a final shape of a building is designing, and there is nothing to deal with a problem. Some people universally accept Design as problem-solving that is little hasty.

Background

Richard Buchanan, a scholar, and a designer talk about ongoing challenges in 1992 in the sense of wicked problems” and gave us the term that used to reveal more about design. In the 1970s, Horst Rittel challenge designers about to solve complex, open-ended, or wicked problems starting from solving simple problems. According to the source, these problems were not easy in choice, and it was difficult to justify with ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ Melvin Weber and Horst Rittel, two design theorists, talk about Design and its link with problem-solving in their piece of writing titled ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.’ The main idea discussed in this writing is wicked problems and how these problems occur in economic, social, and environmental issues, either unpredictable or complex. Both designers propose that a solution is always circular to the problem; “To find the problem is thus the same as finding the solution; the problem cannot be defined until the solution has been found.” (Salituri, 2017) This statement from designers brings radical outcomes for a solution because it motivates people to learn to find a solution by going deep inside the problem. This could happen by investing everything possible to gain the best one that would work. The idea of Design is much flexible because nit every day, a designer has to solve wicked problems. In many cases, principles and methods prepared for wicked problems could apply to common problems and situations as well.

Christopher Alexander, in his book titled “Notes on the Synthesis of Form,” emphasizes the interlink between series of subsystems that freely can adjust with anyone in the feasible environment and time. He says a problem could have more interlinks and alternative points than we ever think. John Christopher Jones, in his book named ‘Design Methods’, proposes a statement that directly supports my claim that is instead of problem-solving, all designs are linked with change because, for a viewer, these designs in one or the other way change their perception. Design is all about dealing with change is stated in the following words in the book; “To design is no longer to increase the stability of the man-made world: it is to alter, for good or ill, things that determine the course of its development.” (Salustri, 2010) This point is further elaborated by saying that Design as change is more appropriate term to use and understand then the Design as problem-solving. This is because we all, being humans, always have a desire to change things around us to understand these things in a better way.

What does it mean to now? –  Design think

I’m planning to talk about how problem-solving developed into the concept of design thinking. And how design thinking to help frame the HCI working process in the paragraph. In HCI, it usually involves five steps:

1. Empathize
2. Defining Problem
3. Ideate
4. Prototype
5. Testing

My Argument

Even though “design is problem-solving” emphasized science and rationality in the design process. However, I still feel this definition is lacking precision, and I will reflect on it from different perspectives:

1. Design covers an extremely diverse range of disciplines. The rationality in the problem-solving process might be rooted in some disciplines, like architecture and urban planning, but it’s not that important in other disciplines, like graphic design. The occurrence of problem-solving in some disciplines does not mean Design is problem-solving. It covers a range of concepts that all depend on the situation, and instead of relying on one meaning, it has numerous links. Every Design that we use today is rooted in our ancestral learned tools that help culminate the historical perspective from which all these disciplines originated. The design could be used as a mode of inquiry but not as problem-solving as a whole because Design is to change. Design is human-centric since its evolution and problems are natural; thus, there is no link between the two.
2. Design is a collaborative activity with multiple stakeholders. Calling ourselves problem solvers not only grab for glory but also acknowledge that others are involved, using that term at all narrows the scope of what we’re capable of achieving. Design is a collaborative activity because it contains several users’ thinking and opinions. For example, the participatory Design in HCI shows that Design is a collaborative activity that includes stakeholders like business representatives, users, and developers working as a team to design a solution or to foster change. The participatory design process is used to ensure that customers are satisfied and that all expectations should be met. Participatory Design is used in numerous types of user collaborations with different limitations to bring change (Muller, 2001). In HCI, the participatory Design is also known as a plan by which future users of a change program collaborate present their views and perform a value-centered design approach. During the participatory design values of a place inscribed in the form of a prototype. Seeing how somebody would fathom a test they face legitimately frequently surfaces new bits of knowledge about their encounters. This new data better educates how users center their endeavors, and the thoughts clients propose to fill in as significant motivation for the arrangements made. In the case of structuring for shoppers, representatives, specialist co-ops, or different crowds.
3. Problems by their nature are born out of existing systems, so by layering a bespoke solution onto problems, we may inadvertently reinforce those systems, whether we believe in their effectiveness or not. Problems are born out of their existing systems; thus, they need the same solution as well. The argument of this paper supported by week three and week five readings says that Design is problem-solving is not an accurate conception, but is changed (Jones, 1992, pp. 4-11). To support this claim, three types of Design would be reviewed and helpful in understanding how problems are reinforced by external systems and oriented towards a long-term solution.
   1. Speculative Design

This is a type of Design between discursive and critical Design that focused on future user scenarios.  Designing user scenarios is important because it helps designers think about things, not exactly what they are but what they could be. In speculative design, users and designers might ask questions about the situation or objects. A statement for speculative designs is; “A form of design that can help us to define the most desirable futures, and avoid the least desirable.”– Anthony Dunne & Fiona Raby (Peace, 2019)

As stated at the start of the paper that a designer design for his/her clients and effort to get the approval on work speculative design also says that design also impacts things beyond users and that our customers. Speculative Design sees the requirements of users with a narrow lens and thus lead towards the narrow state of opportunities and goals. Speculative Design is also knowing as critical Design that think for possibilities instead of probabilities. It also motivates designers to think about possible future opportunities (Peace, 2019).

1. Critical Design

Critical Design is also known as problem finding with the help of a designed frame that would be used to ask questions about social services for how the world could be. Critical Design also used to underlie the basis of the context by which we understand critiques, questions, and culture around us. It also highlights the relationship between labor and the object. This Design also helps us to understand that Design is a problem finder, not a solution. Thus, it is not right to say Design is problem-solving.  Critical Design portrays art, culture, society, and Design to spread awareness or consciousness. This Design is most creative of all and tells users about the purpose of designing as well. Critical Design is also known as an approach to next-level thinking and performing. Critical Design is something contrary to a certifiable structure (Gonsher, 2018). Agreeing to the defenders of the critical plan, most by far of designers make agreed designs, because they work inside a specific ideological setting, and their creative designs line up with this setting rather than challenging it. Critical Design to be sure once in a while handles contentions that individuals by and large see as risky, besides, it should. Critical designers unmistakably express that they rather recognize issues – both existing but predicted – and pose inquiries as opposed to giving answers. They recognize that the basic plan is issue finding rather than critical thinking (Jakobsone, 2017).

1. Affirmative Design

Unlike critical design, the affirmative design is problem-solving because it provides answers to questions and tells users about how the world is. This paper opposes the statement that Design is problem-solving because it is not. When we think about design and organize, we didn’t mean to solve it. This contrast into the information or meaning of designs helps people to think out of the box that how it could be possible because two major design approaches prove it wrong. This is also known as post-critical Design that answer all queries and questions regarding the designing process. Affirmative Design makes a proposition, modest, basic, or unassuming. It is mindful of the little subtleties and recognizes that you won’t manufacture something new but improve or upgrade the old. Affirmative Design also strolls the basic way with care and doesn’t lose sight of its unique specialty; that of proposing new theoretical plans and situations for what’s to come. While dealing with affirmative Design, it has the “can do” mindset of the designer, constructing agent, and intelligent expert. It will utilize the materiality and vitality of the client’s customs to assemble moral and economic structures (Busch, 2009).

Comparison of these three designs shows that one is saying Design is not problem-solving; the critical Design is saying it is problem-finder while the affirmative Design says that it is problem-solving. Bur the paper aims to convey that to say Design is problem-solving is not right. Above numerous quotes from scholars, designers and researchers are portrayed to show the validity of the claim. Although Design is a collaborative activity, the collaborative team isn’t intended to solve the problem. Still, they share perceptions and experiences regarding problem-solving and answer the world why it is so and what it should be.

Conclusion

Design is defined as a method to plan specifications that are used to construct an object or to solve an activity or process. The implementation of a design is used to provide results in the form of a prototype, process, or product. This paper was intended to prove the claim that Design is not problem-solving, but the real meaning or the purpose of Design is to change. The claim is proved by using researched facts that the problem is natural and Design is human-made; thus, it is not possible always that a design could vanish all the problems immediately. Different types of Design are used to highlight the difference and restrict the claim that perception of Design as problem-solving is wrong. Researches also say that the solution of a problem is not in Design but aligned with the problem itself. The more we dig deep into the problem, the more we will find solutions rapidly and answer about the nature of the problem. This paper helps to understand the concept of design and associated problems that would be used in the future. Design is a broader term that needs time and a lot of research to explore more about it.

References

Archer, L. B. (1992). Systematic Methods for designers. Developments in Design Methodology, 56-66.

Busch, O. v. (2009). Revisiting Affirmative Design. http://selfpassage.info/XXI/XXI-0904/0904.htm.

Gonsher, I. (2018). BEYOND DESIGN THINKING: http://www.cd-cf.org/articles/beyond-design-thinking/.

Jakobsone, L. (2017). Critical design as an approach to the next thinking. An International Journal for All Aspects of Design, 2-11.

Jones, J. C. (1992). The Developing Design Process. Design Methods, 4-28.

Muller, M. J. (2001). Participatory Design: The Third Space in HCI. Lotus Research, Lotus Development Corporation, 2-32.

Peace, E. (2019). Speculative design for the real world. UX, https://uxdesign.cc/speculative-design-for-the-real-world-551130b22827.

Salituri, A. (2017). Design is not Problem Solving. https://medium.com/@salituri/design-is-not-problem-solving-bace64318d56.

Salustri, F. A. (2010). Designing is not problem-solving. https://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/designing-is-not-problem-solving/.